Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teen pornography (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 delete due to lack of reliable sources necessary to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teen pornography

Page is unreferenced but as a result also completely fails to establish notability of the subject as a notable form of pornography. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoever wrote the article has failed to convince me that teen pornography is a topic independent of pornography in general. The lack of references really hurts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim to notability in the article is that teen pornography is a popular subject in pornographic films, magazines, etc. Because it is unreferenced, that claim is original research and therefore the article fails to properly assert notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Almost as redundant as an article on "sexual pornography" would be. Tevildo (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks pretty well referenced now. I know this is WP:WAX, but do you really think that panda pornography (or any other pornographic sub-genre) is more worthy of a Wikipedia article than teen pornography? I know that 'teen porn' is a vague and subjectively defined sub-genre of porn (not all of the performers are teens - and some pornography featuring teenagers doesn't live up to the stereotypes that so-called 'teen' pornography portrays), and that this has the strong potential to be a magnet for original research, but it does have seven different sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The references provided in this article indicate sufficient coverage of this subject in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would seem that at this point the article has established references that satisfy WP:V which assert significant independent coverage. SorryGuy Talk 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There could be an article on this topic, if there were any reliable sources writing about it. But there aren't. As it is currently, the article appears to be mostly a list of titles of porn magazines. The sources in the article mention the topic only tangentially, mostly to indicate either that the models are older and pretending to be teens, or that they are children and the material is illegal. Both of those topics are covered in child pornography and pornography; there is no separate topic of "teen pornography", it's just a term used to sell magazines or web subscriptions. The topic does not satisfy WP:N or WP:V; the article should be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a serious article with reliable sources. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you look at the sources themselves to determine if they're reliable an on-topic? For example, in the following paragraph, what information in the footnote supports the content of this text from the article?

The reissue of Larry Flynts' Barely Legal magazine in 1993 spawned copycat magazines with titles such as Hawk, Tight, and Barely 18. Barely Legal itself has diversified into a popular video series of the same name (which ranked #20 in Adult Video News' Top 40 Rentals on 1999-11-22), alongside titles such as Virgin Stories, Cherries, Rookie Cookies, Cherry Poppers, Young and Anal, Cheerleader Confessions, and Young, Dumb and Full of Cum. * [footnote here]

* [reference citation in footnote:] Karlyn, Kathleen Rowe (Fall 2004). ""Too Close for Comfort": American Beauty and the Incest Motif". Cinema Journal. 44 (1). University of Texas Press: 69–93.</ref>

Does the study in the footnote mention Young, Dumb and Full of Cum? I decided to check it out. Not only does the reference not mention that magazine, it also doesn't mention Young and Anal. It turns out, the study is an analysis of the film "American Beauty" and the way in which the film shows the "structure of father-daughter incest, working through displacement, has provided a narrative that links a series of recent cultural developments: the sexualization of ever-younger girls, cinema's erasure of mothers and of career women as sympathetic figures, and efforts to remasculinize the middle-aged white male." Any connection between that study and the topic of this article would be WP:OR because the study does not discuss "teen pornography". Now that I've done the work of confirming that the source is mis-quoted, I'll remove it from the article. If anyone finds something in that source that I missed, that specifically addresses teen pornography, they are welcome to re-add the footnote. But if so, please provide an exact quote on the talk page so it can be verified. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In further reviewing the three sources currently in this article (that as noted above do not directly address the topic of "teen pornography" but discuss it mostly in relation to child pornography), the sources show two different types of pornography that use the word "teen". One type is simply ordinary pornography, with adult models using dress and make-up to portray young teens. As a sub-genre, along with hundreds of other subgenres, that can easily be covered in the main pornography article. The other type uses underage models who are fraudulently documented as adults and described as "teens". That is actually child pornography; its practice of should be covered in that article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (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.