Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASCII porn

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. No consensus to delete. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII porn

Delete. As WP:INTERESTING as this subject may be, the requirement is non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable third party publications. We simply do not have that. JBsupreme (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ASCII art. I agree that references do not exist for notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or failing that Merge and Redirect to ASCII art. I believe references can be found. E.g. Art and Obscenity by Kerstin Mey mentions the "ASCII pr0n genre" and as an example, Deep ASCII http://www1.zkm.de/~wvdc/ascii/java/ . C'Lick Me: A Netporn Studies Reader edited by Katrien Jacobs, Marije Janssen, Matteo Pasquinelli also calls it the "ASCII pr0n genre." Шизомби (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) As prevalent as this stuff once was, it doesn't seem there is much writing about it and one of these sources appears to be quoting the other. There may be offline print resources about it, but they may prove hard to locate. Pornography in general is an underdocumented subject. Favoring merging and redirect now (it had been a redirect originally, it appears); I'll add the sources. Шизомби (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Шизомби (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article and its citations have been improved. This article [1] demonstrates quite substantial coverage as well as very significant historical notability.
Merge; after a certain editor put some of that porn on my talk page I am convinced of its notability. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just worked a little on the ASCII art article--man, that is thrilling stuff. I'm positively pixelated. CoM, I'm going to need some coffee, intravenously. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ASCII art. There's not enough really for a standalone article, but it would be a useful addition to the main article. Ladyof Shalott 01:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my heart I would like to keep this as it is, but we do have an obligation to ensure all the material we present is reliable and verifiable through other sources, prohibiting original research. So as odd as this may sound, I oppose a merge because this will undoubtedly be lost in the main ASCII art article and never get sourced, keep it where it is and fix it there. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coccyx is right. This ought to be an article, and the page devoted to the genre in Art and Obscenity confirms that there are sources out there.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically it's creative...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have revised my view based on improvements to the article and the addition of sources with substantial coverage and very clear historical notability. I encourage the closing admin to consider the state of the article when the earlier conclusions were reached if those editors don't have a chance to revisit the subject. o>8-< ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ASCII art, there's very little in this article. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A notable topic in its own right, apart from ASCII art. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (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.