Talk:Pokémon and pornography

A key problem with the article

While there's definitely the matter that Pokemon porn *exists* and it's noted as existing, there isn't a broader examination of the subject to really merit an individual article. With, say, Overwatch, there's a much broader discussion going on examining it all as a whole. With this subject however it's more of a coatrack: things exist, but no discussion or examination of them as a whole. It needs that to really merit an article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

124.169.145.209 (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to use e621 statistics for this article?

I'd want to include more detailed results for which pokemon are the most "popular" per se by counting the number of results from e621 tags. However, it would take far too long with the method I'm thinking of (which is going through every single pokemon tag), there's probably a far better way to determine this, and raw statistics likely isn't admissible to this site. 172.112.199.166 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me! E621 IS a site mainly focused on pornography, so it would be worth inclusion I would think. Samoht27 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is even more images on AGNPH, but e621's results are probably better curated and tagged, even if it hoovers up less artwork overall 121.200.6.108 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon and pornography/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 17:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 23:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is probably not the outcome you were hoping for...but I feel this is nowhere ready for GA. Look at a subject like Overwatch and pornography and you can see more what this needs to get closer: there needs to be some degree of reaction in an overarching manner, some indication as to *why* this matters as a subject. Instead it's mainly a Start-class article saying it exists, and that's not really enough. I'm sorry but you need a lot more here first.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon and pornography/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 16:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyshifter, this is in the exact same place as the last time. This is barely any encyclopedic look at the subject and more just a culmination of various porn things related to Pokemon. That doesn't work for this sort of article. I even checked the history and outside of a few small edits the biggest change was everything being archived?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much that can be added to the article, and it is at the most encyclopedic it can get. As such, I disagree that making it "more encyclopedic" should be required, as it is not possible in my view — unless it is related to other issues, such as prose. But if the issue is the topic itself, not much can be done. Skyshiftertalk 16:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is you still need something comprehensive for Good Article status, and that does include an examination or some reaction to the subject as a whole. The sources you have cited for that are sparse, in fact this in particular isn't actually even saying anything about the topic, and I can't even see what's been cited in this as far as statements. That's already failing a spot check.

What you have here isn't an article, it's a WP:COATRACK: a collection of events that are involved in the subject, but have next to no unifying factors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Going further, this paper is stated to be an academic observation: it's a brief mention that states "Pornhub Insights ventures into such political realms as porn consumption by country (Serbia, 28 February 2014; Argentina, 6 December 2016), consumption by members of certain demographics (women for women, 17 November 2016), the consumptive habits of pornography during certain (inter)national and (inter)cultural holidays (Thanksgiving, 17 November 2016; St. Patrick’s Day, 17 March 2017), or the highly political data of porn consumption, its rates, flows, and traffics before, during, and after the 2016 American Election or Italian Referendum (7 December 2016), for example (Pornhub Insights Team Citation2020). This collation is coupled with detailed statistical analysis – replete with bar and scatter graphs and pie charts – of more ‘idiosyncratic’ consumer interests such as Pokémon porn searches (12 July 2016) or coulrophilic searches (14 October 2016)."

Pokemon is literally only mentioned in the very last sentence, and very briefly. This fails SIGCOV and is being given WP:UNDUE weight.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable; thanks for removing these sources. However, I still think the article is comprehensive — it is comprehensive to the extent the topic allows it, so I disagree that it has to be "more" than that if it's impossible. Skyshiftertalk 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing is though you lack the foundation entirely: the closest thing to an observation we have is that there are more focus on the Pokemon themselves than on the trainers. The reason I mentioned Overwatch and pornography in the last review is because it shows an example of how such a section should look: analysis and reaction that covers it as a whole. There are other books and article examining that too (i.e. Nathan Grayson's on Kotaku). Right now this would probably be more at home on an article titled Video games and pornography, because you have these varying elements, some of which providing notability to their respective components, but not something as a whole. Gardevoir getting a large amount of porn does not provide much of a statement about the Pokemon franchise getting it compared to the character's own design. Do you follow?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing: Overwatch porn got much more coverage than Pokémon porn. That's not a fair comparison at all. It's impossible to follow what the Overwatch and pornography article does because that got another level of coverage. I guess I can try looking for more sources or see if anything else can be extracted from the current sources, but that would likely result in just a sentence or two added at most. Skyshiftertalk 18:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay, I asked another editor privately if they could offer some thoughts on this but they appear to be busy. I'm going to fail this GAN, but with the observation that you should greatly consider merging it into a larger subject. Even by your own admission, there isn't enough content to unify it into a standalone split from an examination of Pokemon cultural influence or a broader subject of pornography on video games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.