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.
PROD removed, my searches have found nothing better at all and there's simply nothing actually convincing this can be its own independently notable article. SwisterTwistertalk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article and the single cited (non-notable) source appears to be character assassination aimed at the Mormon Church, since no reliable sources indicate this subject is notable or even true. I recommend deleting as quickly as possible - I am guessing the Mormon Church will not be happy about this article being on Wikipedia, because it is inflammatory and appears to serve an agenda of some sort. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cited source is obviously an opinion piece and nothing more. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I blanked the page and tagged for Speedy Deletion G!0 - attack page. Feel free to read my comments in the page history and talk page history. ---Steve Quinn (talk)
I don't believe the article falls under WP:ATTACK and have reverted you as such. The article describes a niche genre that exists. It may not be notable but the article treats the topic neutrally even if the church considers it blasphemous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "blasphemous" or anything like that. It is an article created by being based on unsubstantiated and inflammatory claims with no reliable sources to back it up. Wikipedia is not here to defame or attack - and that is all this page does. Did you remove the content from the Talk page? There was information there pertaining to the PROD and this AFD that should remain on the page. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point exactly to what excerpts you consider as unsubstantiated,inflammatory, or even an attack? Remember that attack is a page that disparages the subject of the article. The subject of the article is mormon pornography. Not Mormons. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is a genre that does exist and is supported by sources in addition to the fusion article. [1][2][3]Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I perceived the title and the contents of the article as an unsubstantiated attack on this particular religion - which would also fit the definition of an attack page. I perceived as such because I didn't see any other sources that supported this subject. If I had tried different search terms and so on, I might have come across some. If the consensus here is that these new sources are acceptable then so be it. I would prefer this shows up in more mainstream publications - but whatever consensus says in the AfD is what it will be. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point specifically the unsubstantiated attacks in the article as it is currently written? The vagueness of your arguments is not helping this discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely exists, and there's coverage in reliable sources. There is nothing defamatory about this article. I am mystified by this claim. The porn itself may be weird (to some) and upsetting to Mormons, but Wikipedia is not censored. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Some source examples are listed below. North America1000 11:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the overall topic of religious porn should have a WP article, but not that we should have a stand-alone article for a specific religion like Mormonism, since it's not the only religion to have been featured in pornography (there's also Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.). It's better to create an article titled "Religious pornography" and have sections for specific religions within it. No reason to have a bunch of different articles like Mormon pornography, Muslim pornography, Jewish pornography, etc. when a single article can easily encompass all that information. Rename to Religious pornography, expand with info on other religious pornographic subgenres, and redirect Mormon pornography to the specific section on the topic within the new article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting list of sources from NorthAmerica, interesting because they skew left-wing creating an interesting 21st century echo of the 17th - 19th vogue among left-wing intellectuals (some was translated into English, but it was usually written in Paris, Vienna and other Catholic places as a means of attacking the Catholic Church - I'm lookin' at you Marquis de Sade). This can similarly be construed as a similar attack on the institution of the Mormon Church and on Mormons as an identity group. We are not, however, dealing with the extent or caliber of sourcing available to support Convent pornography. Because I only find a handful of sources, this runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM. Because sourcing is weak, no scholarship, no serious journalism, just color stories and Gizmodo, a group blog - I do not see that this passes WP:GNG. Because sources skew leftist or leftish and are publications with an anti- or irreligious audience and slant (Alternet, Salt Lake City Weekly, Vice (magazine), I think keeping it risks WP:UNDUE and WP:ATTACK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Double-checking myself, I did find a scholarly article: [Foster, Craig L. "Victorian Pornographic Imagery in Anti-Mormon Literature." Journal of Mormon History 19, no. 1 (1993): 115-32. [4]. One serious article doth not WP:GNG make. I would revisit if someone can produce serious journalism or scholarship on this as a contemporary phenomenon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another article if you equate erotica with pornography. Many people make a distinction and others disagree. Peterson, L. S. (1987). In defense of a Mormon erotica. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20, 122-27. The author analysed the two genres to promote a distinction to defend Mormon erotica writers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User E.M. Gregory - thank you. Most of what you said, is what I wanted to say, but I didn't want to have a long (or short) debate with 4 or more other people - trying to show what is very clear to me. I am seeing the sourcing as not very high caliber. This article appears to be an attack (indirect or otherwise) on the Mormon religion and Mormons as an identity group. The writing in the sources is skewed anti-religious and some of it seems sarcastic.
For this type of article, I think high caliber sources are needed- such as scholarly works - or serious journalism - such as in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., and mainstream magazines. And, yes, based on the quality of the sources thus far, this subject appears to have been given undue weight WP:UNDUE.
Finally, I did not know, but should have guessed, that this type of behavior has shown up in the past - as it did in the 17th thru 19 centuries regarding some other religion, i.e., Catholicism. Additionally, the sources running afoul of WP:RECENTISM is related relevant to this discussion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete., does not meet GNG for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several of the delete !votes are from people who seem to be upset that the subject of the article exists, and are taking these feelings out on the article about the subject. That would be akin to a pro-life activist trying to get the abortion article deleted. This topic is written about in reliable sources and is notable, so we should have an article about it regardless of whether some find it offensive. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable new sources added since nomination. ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to convince me that there's an article in here somewhere. The exact details can be hashed out on the talk page. I don't think this article from Queerty has been posted yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of RS coverage, so I don't understand what the delete !voters think. Ignoring Rule 34 doesn't make it go away. Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this AfD results in a Keep I think the two scholarly articles posted by User:E.M.Gregory and User:Morbidthoughts should be added as references in some way. User Morbidthoughts' article does not specifically discuss this topic, but its broad view approaches this subject from a different angle - and it is really well written. User E.M. Gregory's article also does not specifically discuss this topic, but it does approach this subject from a historical perspective - it is also well written.
Also, upon reviewing the sources, this subject appears to be satisfactorily covered in a number of posted independent sources that are staffed with editors and reporters who are engaged in real journalism. The times they are a-changin'. In other words, --->
I remember a time when any online based publication was suspect. I have just discovered that now we have many alternate reputable news sources. I am happy to say, in the area of communication and news reporting, it is a different world. I have never done this before, but I want to thank everyone for their contribution to this AfD - it's been a learning experience--- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
---By the way, both scholarly articles contributed by Moribunds and E M Gregory are worth reading:
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.
