Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn groove

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porn groove

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I believe "porn groove" is a protologism and would fall under WP:NOTNEO. Even the article's single source doesn't mention the term. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources out there (at least not on the internet), in particular when searching for this specific term, but not even for pornography music in general. On the other hand, it does seem to me like the music in pornography should be notable, and perhaps this is instead a case of not getting the article's name right. Brycehughes (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Subject is more trivia than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. It's a real genre that has been around for years, not a neologism, and there's coverage online, mostly of recent artists in the genre: [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Porn music. We know it when we hear it. It also passes the GNG. [4][5][6][7][8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Music in pornography" might be a tad more encyclopedic. Brycehughes (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This helps with the search for sources. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source listed in the article and those presented here do not meet WP:GNG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think this Article is Not notable in itself, so delete the Article.Forest90 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename per Michig and Morbidthoughts. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources offered at this AfD are not suggestive of notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG based upon a source review. Consider renaming to Porn music, which presently redirects to this article. However, Porn groove is also a thing, as per the sources, so this can be included. Furthermore, source searches using the term "porn music" are providing more sources in addition to those presented here and in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 21 April 2019 (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.