Talk:Pokémon and pornography/GA2

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.