Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornotopia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pornotopia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NOT, it is a thinly veiled dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. no prejudice to this being recreated on wikitionary. Although the article supplies background information to the neologism, there is no actual topic here. Dysklyver 15:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The depth of this concept is such that entire books have been written about it—for example, the first hit from Google Scholar is Designing pornotopia: essays on visual culture (which is already cited, though not linked, in the Wikipedia page), or Beatriz Preciado's use of the concept in analysis of Playboy’s worldview, reviewed in a scholarly journal. The concept has also been used extensively by evolutionary biologist Donald Symons, for example in his book The Evolution of Human Sexuality and elsewhere.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sources already present in the article establlish independent notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.