Talk:competence porn

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

competence porn

This has existed for at least 6 years (http://archive.wired.com/geekdad/2009/10/admit-it-you-love-competence-porn-too/, http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/09/the_martian_is_not_competence_porn_why_it_s_wrong_to_compare_ridley_scott.html) so I don't see why it's being deleted as a protologism. Do the administrators bother to read the references, or do they just delete on their own competencies, regardless? -- 70.51.44.60 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I rather doubt that it is or was a protologism. It looks like an instance of the combination of a noun with porn (“Lurid or sensational material. Often used in combination: disaster porn; Printed material featuring enticing photography: quirky or scholarly garden books that would be lost in the spring flood of garden porn (Michael Pollan).”) Definitions taken from American Heritage Dictionary, but similar definitions are to be found in some of the dictionaries at “porn”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Thank you. We lacked such a definition. DCDuring TALK 00:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We do have some entries like food porn, property porn, revenge porn, mommy porn (bluelinks at the time of this post) -- 70.51.44.60 08:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a sense at porn that captures the concept behind the 'xyz porn' usage a bit better: "(uncountable, informal, often humorous) Material that provides illicit gratification of an obsessive or unhealthy interest in something.". It could probably use a little tweaking. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I opened WT:RFV#competence porn to see whether it is attested. I make no comment about whether it is sum of parts (SOP). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Meanwhile, we have some quotations at Citations:competence porn. These can be checked to judge whether this is a sum of parts (SOP). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep not really a transparent compound - it's not just porn in which any competence is displayed (e.g. watching a great classical guitarist); in fact, I had no idea what it meant until reading the citations, and looking up some of the websites for clarification. -- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2015–February 2016

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

competence porn

Please add attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST to Citations:competence porn. The entry is deleted, and if no attesting quotations are added, it will stay deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how RfV is supposed to work. Entries/definitions are kept until the RfV discussion is closed as fail. The top of the page says RfV discussions are supposed to be closed after a month, but in practice they often stay open for months, presumably to allow time for someone in our relatively small editor pool to answer the call to hunt for cites. This shouldn't have been deleted – especially not when the term's existence is backed up by multiple newspaper and magazine citations listed on the citations page (many are uses, but they prove that the term exists and is likely attestable). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The backlog on both patrolling, which is a fairly urgent necessity, and RFV, which is somewhat less urgent, cause the needful speedy deletion of pages that appear to be protologisms. Occasionally our judgement may fail, and that's why an RFV like this is the right way to go. So yes, this is suboptimal, but it's an acceptable solution to a problem of unwieldy scope. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudcuckoolander: I guess I agree with you; the entry should ideally be undeleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored the entry per above comments. Also, I was confused as to what "competence porn" was supposed to mean, for purposes of attestation. Now I know, apparently: "(criticism) the modern moniker for entertainment featuring competent characters carrying out difficult tasks with high aptitude". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• The citations that have been added appear to be sufficient. RFV passed. Note that the entry has also passed RFD. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

sum of parts?

This entry seems to be a sum of parts, and would allow a large number of attested "__ porn" compound nouns, e.g. "organization porn" (used textually in an episode of the TV show Modern Family) and "wedding porn" (from a feminist-studies article title, discussing the platonic fetishization and fascination with weddings in US American society, as opposed to the literal meaning of wedding-themed sexual pornography). NicoleSharpRFS (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)