Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn 2.0 (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porn 2.0

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

May not be notable. Notability tag present since November 2012. HYH.124 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEO. This subject does not in itself have enough notability to justify the existence of an article. If there's anything worth salvaging here, it ought to simply be merged into existing articles on pornography or internet pornography in particular. Ducknish (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a noteworthy topic. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Split and merge. I found three mentions of the term in reliable book sources: Feona Attwood (2010). Porn.com: Making Sense of Online Pornography. Peter Lang. pp. 11–. ISBN 978-1-4331-0207-3., David Glen Mick; Simone Pettigrew; Cornelia (Connie) Pechmann (26 January 2012). Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being. Routledge. pp. 500–. ISBN 978-1-136-69874-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and Sarah Schaschek (5 December 2013). Pornography and Seriality: The Culture of Producing Pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-1-137-35938-4.. Arstechnica, cited in the article, is reliable, [1]. Google Scholar shows some use of the term, too ([2]). That said, I am not convinced that this term is the most often used. The term seems to be used either to what is described at Amateur_pornography#User_generated_online_content, or Internet_porn#Video_files_and_streaming_video, and the article is somewhat of a mess trying to talk about those two concepts; not to mention there's some unreferenced spammy content, too. My current recommendation it to split and merge it between the two linked main articles. As written, it seems an inappropriate synthesis of two topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Porn 2.0 should end up being WP:DAB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a topic of academic interest. See, for example, "Demystifying Porn 2.0: A Look into a Major Adult Video Streaming Website," by Garrett Tyson, et al. Passes GNG. Additionally, this article is a useful navigational device as a de facto "List of...". Carrite (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another piece of significant independent coverage, for the record: Jacqui Cheng, "Porn 2.0 is stiff competition for pro pornographers," ARS Technica. Carrite (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes the GNG per Carrite and what I found among the Google Books hits. [3][4][5][6][7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely used term among numerous academics and scholars in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2014 (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.