Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grief porn
Before I make my point: Benjiboi, are you the one who added the strikethrough to Teh Crafty's post? If so, don't you find that a little arrogant? Deciding that someone else's post is irrelevant? Anyway, I believe we should delete the article called Grief porn. In my opinion, Media coverage of tragedy would be a great article to have, but the creation of that article is totally irrelevant to this article's AfD. Benjiboi, don't say that "the discussion has moved away from" Grief porn, because that's the article this AfD was created for, so that should be our focus. And in my opinion, there is no question that Grief porn is an unencylopedic, dictionary-style article with '''no hope whatsoever''' of becoming an encylopedic article, due simply to its nature. If someone is willing to create the article Media coverage of tragedy, that's great, kudos to them, it would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. However, the content of Grief porn wouldn't even necessarily be included in Media coverage of tragedy, and even if it was, the issue of whether or not it is appropriate ''in that article'' and how to deal with it will be up to the creator and editors of that article, not some unrelated consensus on an AfD page for a long-dead article. Our issue here is whether or not to delete Grief porn. I think we should, per . Creating Media coverage of tragedy is very different from renaming or rescuing Grief porn because ''grief  porn'' is only a small element of Media coverage of tragedy
— User:Neil, 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOTADICT (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)