Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipornia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.191.172.236 (talk) at 23:33, 2 February 2006 (→‎[[Wikipornia]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipornia

'Keep itIt seems to me that if somebody really wanted to look at porn, they wouldn't go to anything Wikipedia. It's not harmful and should be kept up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.168.72 (talk • contribs)

Keep it. You can't seriously be considering this. I can think of no more gross an example of subjective morality's continued stranglehold on mass media than this insurrection into the collective free-knowledgebase that is Wikipedia. We've got issues on this website, and we don't need to be judging an ACCURATE, popular article when there are several incomplete, poorly written, and largely false articles existing on the site daily. The "neologisms" argument is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It denies the global community the ability to have its say in what information should be readily available to mass audiences, which is what Wikipedia was made for. Last time I checked, we're not Microsoft. This timid argument is ridiculous.


The idea of banning "Neologisms" is faulty policy to begin with, and that's what this debate boils down to. The gap between 'current' neologisms and legitimate terms is only bridged by apparent common usage. Common usage is related to popularity, which is, in most cases, due to nothing more than personal exposure to the word. Wikipedia is special for many reasons, not least of which is its ability to disperse new--yes, even BRAND new--information to a large, international audience. To deny that Wikipedia facilitates society in this exciting learning process is to depreciate our own website, and self-impose a lower standard of value and influence on society than traditional media. We're peeing on our own feet, folks.


This article strikes at the heart of the faulty "Neologism" policy. We can't just say "wait we don't allow these because we say so," if it appears as though there is a legitimate reason for the policy ITSELF to be reviewed, which I believe is the real issue here. If you expel the ability of Wikipedia to help new concepts make it as quickly as possible into the marketplace of ideas, you're destroying what makes this site unique and extremely important.


Ok, so "Wikipornia" isn't exactly the most important and valiant example of the flaws inherent in the "Neologisms" policy; that DOESN'T mean that the flaws don't exist. If you outlaw the Wiki-community's ability to help new concepts come to the forefront, you're stunting the vast potential of Wikipedia, and railing against the very concept behind the internet itself.


If we decide to delete this, and other similar articles, I wish you good luck in your quest to make Wikipedia as dry, boring, linear, and immediately out of date as a regular encyclopedia. Why don't we just publish a book if we want to exclude the idea of timeliness, completion, community, and open-source R/evolution that began this site? [User:68.22.241.142|68.22.241.142] 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -- MadCasey


KEEP It....if anything its only bringing more people to the wonders of wikipedia -Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.178.116 (talk • contribs)

Would you take the word penis out of the dictionary? It's no worse than what children learn in human sexuality which is an extremely common course lately. In fact, in the class, children see much worse than this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.213.222 (talk • contribs)

Keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.126.148 (talk • contribs)

"Keep it! It can't go undocumented just because you find it inappropriate!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.48.34 (talk • contribs)

Keep this. Dont be like China.

KEEP it. The world can't be hurt by having too many entries into Wikipedia!!

Keep it. Only because it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.79.15 (talk • contribs)

Keep it! You've gotta keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.142.29 (talk • contribs)

Delete as neologism and not terribly encyclopedic at that. Fightindaman 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! This is a valid entry, but it definately needs to be touched up and made better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep it!: I think the point is coming accross quite well. If Wikipedia needs to make a disclaimer because hundreds of people...WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS WORD, are fighting for it to be kept, it is worthy of being up here. There are "encyclopedic entries" where the definition says it is a neologism and aren't up for deletion. WIKIPORNIA is also mentioned in the WIKIapproved page for College Humor. How could moderators allow such a page to exist if they descripe wikipornia in it? Because it is widely accepted...--Onestudlyomelet 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hundreds of people who would never have shown up here if not for a College Humor hotlink directing them to, and hundreds of people who will probably never contribute to this project again after this AfD is decided. I could write something non-encyclopedic about Jeopardy! wagering, post it, and then post on the show's message boards to get everyone to support my point vociferously when it comes up for AfD. But that wouldn't be right. -- Andy Saunders 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it!: How about deleting and correcting the idiotic and merely incorrect articles you already have before witch-hunting ones that don't meet YOUR particular set of moral standards. Just because it represents an amusing aspect of youth culture does not prevent it being interesting, accurate and insightful. Save Wikipornia! ~ Forbie
  • Keep it!: IMO kids have been snickering at the vagina entry of an encylopedia for years, its just now on the internet, no difference ~ TymZero


The phrases "laser," "homophobia," and "genocide" were all neologisms. Source Wikipedia.Indeed this word is soon to become a cultural phenomenon as Collegehumor, and Wikipedia obtain thousands of unique hits every day. Let it also be known, that because there is little information surrounding the phrase "Wikipedia" that is the only reason he can claim the allegations that it is "not terribly encyclopedic." As you all know, users are enabled to add information they deem necessary, therefore addition to this definition will occur over time. This article should NOT be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by onestudlyomelet (talk • contribs)

    • FREE CLUE: The only thing that bridges the gap between "were" and "are" is, as you all keep screaming about, COMMON USAGE. Common usage is related to popularity, which is, in most cases, due to nothing more than personal exposure to the word. Wikipedia promotes common usage and is a place to LEARN, not a place to assimilate. The neologism argument is flawed.
  • Comment: There is no self reference in the definition. I only saw it on collegehumor. I am in no way affiliated with them. And on the neologism note I make myself perfectly clear that I meet the standards by citing the hits from many non-collegehumor pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.172.236 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Comment: Upon further research, "wikipornia" is even cited by others than myself on this very website. Bottom of Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.172.236 (talk • contribs) 1:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What part of "no self-references" was unclear? And please SIGN YOUR POSTS. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I tend to agree this is not a WP:SELF problem (and if it was, I don't think such is basis for deletion, only a rewrite). To quote the policy, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important." I think if everyone and their mother used this term (or for instance, newspapers) then there would be no problem. As it is, however, it is a new idea and needs to gain popularity before being included. Existing on google is quite different from being widely used (as might be demonstrated via google). That is how I read it at least. Thus I claim it is a relatively unused neologism and should not be included as such. --Hansnesse 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrases "peckay," "EJ" and "schrank" were all neologisms. Let's check Wikipedia--oh no!!. Delete. —rodii 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I browse CH all the time and have never heard of it. --Andy Saunders 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • RELAX: And because it shows up a couple of times in CH Hotlinks it suddenly DOESN'T exist? Take your "neologism" morality (read: sexy slang) and stick it where it belongs: your own home.68.22.241.142 12:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -- MadCasey[reply]

Comment: Keep it - And make it a section of Wikipedia. It is accurate and has been mentioned quite a bit on CH.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.168.65 (talk • contribs)

  • CommentKeep it i like porn and i like learning thats all, and if i can look at porn a learn about the baby maker parts of women nice. dpaine1979
  • Comment:Keep it, why not? censroship here? surely not (heres looking at you google) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgebergel (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: There's a link on Collegehumor.com entitled "save wikipornia" today. All of these unsigned votes are probably directed from there. NOTE THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. SIMPLY COMING HERE AND TYPING KEEP WILL NOT ENSURE THAT IT GETS KEPT. Fightindaman 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LOL...this last comment is funny...how about this...THIS IS NOT A TOTALITARIAN REGIME!!! SIMPLY TYPING IN ALL CAPS WILL NOT IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON OTHERS!!!...that being said, what's the big fuss? There certainly are more ridiculous pages on here...see "Teabagging" or "Rusty Trombone" for examples...71.249.76.83 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Matthew Ruiz[reply]
  • Comment. What makes me laugh is all these people coming here to passionately vote Comment. You're making a strong case for Comment there, guys. I can't wait to see the closing admin say "The result of the debate was Comment". —rodii 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quote: "Wikipedia articles are not [...] a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." If we must keep it, fold it into the CollegeHumor article. And a note to everyone who's crowing about censorship: the deletion of this article is not censorship, it just doesn't belong in Wikipedia, like a dissertation on Gothe doesn't belong in Playboy. Basseq 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be some confusion as to the nomination. I see no one thus far arguing for removal because of morality. Note that removal for the protection of minors is against policy (See this policy), however deletion because the word is a neologism is consistant (in my view at least) with its neologism policy. This is one of many neologisms (hundreds, if not thousands) that have been nominated for deletion. I support a deletion as it is a neologism. --Hansnesse 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! neologisms shouldn't be universally banned because if they become colloquialism part of the beauty of wiki is that people can look up anything. stop being snobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.241.81 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep it It is a new word. There has been alot of discussion today about this subject. Therefore it exists and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.91.23 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I vote for deletion. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Anyways, this isn't popular slang at all. "Thousands upon thousands" being familiar with the term is maybe a few thousand people out of "millions upon millions" that speak English. And anyway, like the article says, this term was coined and used about 5 times on Collegehumor.com. Wikipedia does not and should not have articles about inside jokes or slang terms used by every single website's userbase on the web. It's simply unrealistic. Articles about internet subculture are valid articles (think 1337) but Wikipornia is not common enough to merit having its own article. Used 5 times on one website? Please. The only reason this is being debated is because CollegeHumor linked to this article requesting users to "Save Wikipornia." TheDapperDan 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason not to keep this article. Everyone here citing Wikipedia's "A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." Needs to read the next sentence of that policy. The next sentence says "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used." This article, although is a slang term, is not a guide on how this term is to be used, but rather an explanation of the term itself, which is Wikipedia worthy, because it explains a phenomena, not mearly a straight dictionary word with a meaning and definition. Therefore, I vote Keep. Drlecter491 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't qualify as a phenomenon. Right now it's just a silly word someone made up. If it becomes a phenomenon, then we can write an article on it. Powers 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep it As a valid current phenomenon, Wikipornia should be kept as an entry to continue with the modernity of Wikipedia. If it is in use in the public domain, there should be no reason to delete it.
  • Keep it Do not become totalitarian. Just because views towards your website are not favorable or may jest you does not mean they are not newsworthy or important for people to be able to find information about. Your website is about providing people as much information about a given subject.
  • Delete as neologism, and one invented less than 2 months ago at that. To be truly objective about this apparently emotional vote: delete this article, and wait 6 months later, and see if the term is in widespread use. If it is, then maybe it merits an entry in Wikipedia, otherwise, no.—Tetracube 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping it? It is as much a word as "yo" and "dawg". Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.185.65 (talk • contribs)


As I understand it, the whole idea of Wikipedia is to be a sort of dictionary that evolves as our language does, faster than any Websters or Encyclopedia could. If a word is being used and was not made up to hurt someone, where is the problem? Anyone who is offended by this sort of thing should probably type something else into google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.154.223 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And again, as has already been stated, nobody is saying that this shoudl be deleted because they are offended by it. It is simply not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fightindaman 03:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware of, the people voting for Delete aren't doing it 'cos they're offended. They're voting Delete 'cos this article isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Stop with the knee-jerk reactions already.—Tetracube 06:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I remember my friends and I checking out "encyclipornia" when I was a kid. We were innovators! KEEP IT!-yurmom

  • Delete. To everybody from collegehumor.com and LUELinks, chill. Wikipedia's rules say that among other things, articles on neologisms are not allowed. Slang is fine when it enters general usage, but new words or phrases that are not a part of common usage are not. For example, we have articles on jazz and skyscrapers, but not Longcat or RICK JAMES, BITCH! because these memes are not in common usage. I fail to see how this word is encyclopaedic. - CorbinSimpson 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bullshit. That Neologism "rule" is a Nazi loophole designed to keep out sexually explicit language and depictions of "immoral" actions, such as Teabagging. If we delete this article, good luck in your quest to make Wikipedia as dry, boring, linear, and immediately out of date as a regular encyclopedia. Why don't you just publish a damn book if you want to exclude the idea of R/evolution and community that began this site.
Ahem: Teabagging. We don't want to exclude "R/evolution and community." The objective is not to create an encyclopedia that is boring, linear, and out of date. We just have a high threshhold for new material. When a word becomes well-established (with, in my opinion, Teabagging being right about at the threshhold), we include it. We can't include every little thing someone makes up -- it's not feasible, and other sites (such as Urban Dictionary) cover that niche sufficiently. When "Wikipornia" becomes as widely known as "Teabagging," we'll add it. Powers 13:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Belongs somewhere else, as mentioned, such as UrbanDictionary.com. Not on Wikipedia. onishenko
  • Keep Wikipedia is a continously evolving format. It offers more than standard encyclopedias because it offers certain, less scholarly points of view than say Britannica would. You get a more complete sense of a subject through Wikipedia, rather than be restricted by select facts that are approved by a select community. I believe that by censoring popular trends in culture because "they are more fitted for urbandictionary.com" you are only depriving Wikipedia of one of its inherent advantages over standard encyclopedias. Wikipedia has the opportunity to be a factual, first-stop resource, but also has the opportunity to supplement the facts with popular opinions, trends, and other less tangible, shifting elements of culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Thank You As the creator of this much controversial article, I would like to thank those who have supported the upkeep of not only the word "wikipornia" remaining in wikipedia, but the integrity of wikipedia itself. Whether or not this article will stay has everything to do with the consensus, and we are making it clear, with valid arguments nonetheless, that this is a worthy article. Dirty Sanchez, Rusty Trombone, Cumfart, Creampie, and even ideepthroat...if wikipornia is more of a neologism than those, I believe WIKIPEDIA will lose a lot of users, both new and old. Ahhh I love work. --68.191.172.236 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipornia&oldid=37916880"