Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 15 May 2008

Points of interest related to Sexology on Misplaced Pages: Portal – Category – WikiProject

Points of interest related to Gender studies on Misplaced Pages: Outline – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Points of interest related to LGBT studies on Misplaced Pages: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Assessment – To-do

• WP:DSSG

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sexuality and gender. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sexuality and gender|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sexuality and gender. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender/archive

In addition to AfDs, this page also tracks Categories for discussion, Templates for deletion, Miscellany for deletion, and Deletion review, but these discussions are not automatically expanded here. You will have to follow the links from here to the discussion pages. Instructions for adding these discussions to this page are provided in the comments when you press "edit".

For important information about categorization:

Articles for deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Essentially the commentators are split on the question as to whether this is a dictionary definition or whether the page can be expanded to produce a full-blown encyclopaedic article. Taking into account the discussion on the previous AfD I see no easy resolution of this dichotomy through the AfD process. The page has been tagged for merge discussions but has yet to pick up any comments. My suggestion is for interested editors to engage the merge discussions which seem the best option for a consensual way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pearl necklace (sexuality)

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary DeeKenn (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A non-notable and trivial topic that does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm actually not sure whether an encyclopedic article on this topic would be possible or not, but the present one definitely isn't it: it's primarily a trivia dump of times its's been mentioned in popular culture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge: to Cum shot. (Gods, the things you never thought you'd wind up typing on Misplaced Pages ...) While I'm sure there are a zillion hits, there's no real notability beyond the other article.  RGTraynor  14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ROTFLOL :) Debate (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, not a serious or educational article. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Cum shot Facial (sex act). There are plenty of references to this in books, demonstrating notability. Unless there is enough content to develop it beyond a dictionary definition, then it doesn't need its own article and can be merged to Cum shot Facial (sex act).--BelovedFreak 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per  RGTraynor  and BelovedFreak. DCEdwards 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Belovedfreak's revised merge location. DCEdwards 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Cum shot, since it's really a subset of that anyway. OhNoitsJamie 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it is a dictionary definition, nothing more. (I disagree with merges proposed above; this is the result, not the act.)  Frank  |  talk  19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as dictionary definition. I agree with Frank that it doesn't really seem to fit with Cum shot. (Not relevant to the discussion, but ewwwwww!) Aleta 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that Cum shot is mostly about porn, but it also refers to the act of ejaculation. That's only a small part of the article though, and unreferenced. A more appropriate merge would perhaps be Facial (sex act).--BelovedFreak 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Cum shot. I'm with RGTraynor on this...I never thought I'd say anything like this on Misplaced Pages. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, and I prefer facial (sex act) as it's more specific. A cum shot can be any ejaculation, but facial refers specifically to the ejaculation onto the recipient's body. Technically this could be anywhere from the face to the buttocks (and I suppose the feet if you like), but there isn't an overall term for this that I know. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for the reason I gave above. Also, a merger with Facial (sex act) isn't wise, IMO. That article deal entirely with the facial's role in pornography. Absent the "Role in pornography" section, and the article is yet another definition for a slang term, bringing us full-circle. DeeKenn (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A useful educational little article about a taboo subject. In the world of HIV we need to know all this stuff. Cum shot is about porn movies & hardly relevant, but facial (sex act) would be a possibility if editors don't want a separate article. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and develop further. Thee are certainly a number of sources for the use meaning and signicance as a sexual practice. Shartung is correct there are more general terms--this one is specific. DGG (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef, no potential to be anything but a dicdef. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge: to Cum shot. It's a common form of human sexuality... If people can't handle it, then they should stay off the internet. User:Pwscottiv (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That it is a common practice isn't the issue. DeeKenn (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or merge So far as I an see, this article is not entirely worthless. It should be mentioned somewhere, though I agree perhaps not in its own article. Blood Red Sandman 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: It is a very popular and notable sexual slang term. Plenty of reliable sources available on this topic.
  • The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English by Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor, Page 1455.
  • Pornography and Difference by Berkeley Kaite. (1995) Page 117.
  • Endgame: The Problem of Civilization by Derrick Jensen, Page 203.
• According to Pornography and Difference,

The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English defines pearl necklace as:

Thus pearl necklace is a term used to describe the semen ejaculated on a woman's throat. It has usage in pornography also. Pornography and Difference (page 117) gives detail explanation of the term, why the word "pearl" is used and its usage. This term has equivalent in Sanskrit also. For the Sanskrit eqivalent, see A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary by Arthur Anthony MacDonell, Page 229. Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor by Wendy Chapkis includes pearl necknace within "much safer sexual activities" (page 170). Popular Modernity in America by Michael Thomas Carroll (page 118) mentions the background of the origin of the term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That it is well-defined and widely-used isn't the issue. The issue, to me, is can the article be taken further than just a definition? I have Partridge's book as well. I worship J.E. Lighter. I love words. I love etymology. I love slang and idioms. But, I also like my dictionaries and encyclopedias, and I (think) I know when they should separate. DeeKenn (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; see no reason why it can't be expanded beyond a definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; Why does this have less encyclopedia entry-potential than Mastication? Baiter (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That's a good example of an article that needs merging. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. DeeKenn (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep based on the notability of the former bar (so I, boldly, edited to turn the focus from the current store to the former bar) - Nabla (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Al's

• Articles for deletion/Big Al's

Big Al's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced with dubious claim to notability. Quick Google test yielded higher results for aquarium supplies than this club. --EEMIV (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, no independent sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep there are numerous references to Big Al's in popular culture, and it's clearly a notable SF landmark as it crops up in a wide variety of commentary as such (eg "just opposite Big Al's"). I don't have time right now to update the article (if I get a chance I will later), but searching Google books for "big al's" "San Francisco" comes up with several mentions. Google "Big Al's" "San Francisco" -gore -fish to get rid of Al Gore and seafood cuts down the irrelevant hits a bit more. If you want to be creative add a couple more exclusions (add a - before the term) to narrow even further. Debate (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I have added a reference called "Striptease: The Untold History of the Girlie Show" which is a legitimate book. It suggests Big Al's was a notable part of the history of strip clubs, as well as adult entertainment in San Francisco. In addition to being the first bottomless club, it may have been the first club in the world with A) dancers with silicon implants or B) a mother/daughter act. Uh... well anyway, wacky firsts aside, this gets a lot of results on GN Archive and Google books. I have added one source to the article. I doubt the modern sex toy store is notable, but the 1960s club it traces its roots to seems to be. --Rividian (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the further explanation.DGG (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm discounting most "delete" comments made before Simon Speed's expansion and sourcing of the article, as they focused on the lack of reliable sources for (and therefore also notability of) the topic. Most of these comments would probably not have been made after the edits to the article.  Sandstein  06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Play party (BDSM)

• Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM)
• Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)

Play party (BDSM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The whole article is basically an explanation of a term called a "play party". Is it necessary to have a two sentence article describing an almost self-explanatory topic? This is obviously not notable enough for its own article. — Parent5446 02:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

NOTE Nominator made request of withdrawal of this nomination below and voted "KEEP." --Oakshade (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This obviously does not meet WP:N, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. At best it has coverage in one source, but it's really just half a page. The last AFD produced more in the way of promises of sources than actual sources. --Rividian (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:OR as well. Grsz 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as basically a dictionary definition. Aleta 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Keep as per expansion and addition of reliable sources. Well done, Simonxag, Aleta 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I just looked at the talk page and history of the article. It seems that there is a content and sourcing debate happening. The article was a lot longer than the two sentences it is now, but mostly unsourced. Also, the last AfD closed just on the 3rd of May. Aleta 04:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial subject that clearly fails WP:N. Nothing warrants a separate article about this. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural keep - Although I would !vote delete on the article in its current condition, I do not think that it is reasonable to renominate an article less than a week after a previous AfD has closed. Obviously consensus can change, and the previous AfD closed without consensus being reached, but I don't think particularly want to encourage repeated nominations until an article is kept or deleted. I am not accusing the current nominator of this behavior, rather, this is a general policy argument. Xymmax (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Books are more likely to be the multiple reliable sources required here, and presumably there are a great many books about BDSM. --Eastmain (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a hypothetical argument not based on the verifiable evidence that is actually presented here. Only one book is cited in the article itself and it is not clear from the citation that the book even mentions the "Play party". Even if it does, the context is not clear either and there is no indication that the concept itself is notable, as required by WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The book does, but it mentions play party for half a page. You can find it on Google Books. At any rate, claims that this is "presumably" mentioned in some books somewhere is a very weak argument... you could say anything is mentioned in some book somewhere, it doesn't mean much without proof. --Rividian (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as dict def. However, it is highly inappropriate to renominate an article so soon after the last AfD. DCEdwards 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Article has been stripped down to 2 directly sourced facts. A number of websites give further information, but the deleter Rividian has made it clear that any word not directly referenced to a printed source will be deleted. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – it's a dictionary entry at best; one discussion in a book on kinky sex doesn't make a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete sources are unreliable. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: at this point, the article was re-edited by Simon Speed. -- The Anome

• Comment I have re-edited the article. It is substantially expanded and has 5 reliable sources with inline citations. The reasons given for deletion clearly no longer apply. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - now appears to be adequately sourced. -- The Anome (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - looks to be a notable topic in the BDSM community, is a decent start to an article, is in the middle of a content dispute, and this re-nomination is way too soon. --Alynna (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - At this point, even I, being the nominator of the second AfD, am starting to lean toward the keep side. I think maybe I nominated this article prematurely. Sorry about that. Now it seems to have established its notability and we are starting to see more sources. In this stage, deletion is no longer the resolution, improvement is. Are there any objections? — Parent5446 02:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a dicdef and trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the sources are reliable enough for the purpose. And it is a discussion of the subject, not a dicdef. DGG (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Snow keep per nom (!). AfD is not the place to ask for article clean up. Bikasuishin (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for AFD. Discussion of common term within subculture, and is now backed up by five sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - For this very common BDSM function, this was a case for improvement and expansion tags, not deletion, especially as the article was under AfD a week ago. This happenstime and time again. --Oakshade (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right, it happens time and time again. "It" in this context being "keep and improve" followed by no improvement. If the improvements this time round had been made then, no renomination would have occurred. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Improved? The content has changed little. With 1 exception which I had deleted) it always matched what you found googling umpteen sites. What has changed is the number of accademic & printed sources and that every phrase is referenced to these. Any phrase not so referenced was being deleted citing verifiability. Something you find elsewhere in Misplaced Pages? Really? Most of those wanting to delete here have acted in good faith, but none have actually done anything to improve the article. I have acted in an attempt to stop the article being censored. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But Simon, adding those references is a big improvement to the article! Aleta 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Only in making the article harder to censor. The verifiability principle is there to help clear out rubbish & resolve POV disputes. It has been abused here to break the not-censored principle. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why am I currently trying to save an article about a stip club/fetish store from another AFD if I'm so interested in censoring sex articles? I guess I'm interested in stopping an article from providing questionable legal and safety advice, as the Play party article did a week ago, and asking for references seems to have fixed that. Accusations that I'm just trying to delete this article because it's about sex are a classic contradiction of WP:AGF, rude, and incorrect; they're based on assuming the worst of me rather than looking at anything I'm actually doing and saying. --Rividian (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, making it "harder to censor" is only one way it improved the article. While it is not required that every statement in an article be cited, an article with every statement cited to a reliable source is definitely better than the exact same text without those citations. Aleta 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This page seems to be sourced in a number of independent hard-sources. Personally, I see no merit in the claims that this page fails to meet the notability criterion. The claims that this page is too similar to a dictionary definition do not warrant deleting the page--they warrant expanding it. I also want to remark that the people suggesting the deletion and deleting a lot of the prose might first take a look at the cited sources before making bold claims that this page is not adequately sourced. Cazort (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously. Like, come on, you prudes! JeanLatore (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete highly trivial. Lighthead 02:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is the subject of secondary sources. Besides the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, is there any other reason you feel this should be deleted? --Oakshade (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The has not been "the subject of secondary sources". It's been mentioned 1-2 times in 5 sources... none of them are even close to being written about play parties. I do not believe this meets WP:N or WP:NEO, which require sources about the topic, rather than ones that mention the topic once or twice, but it's a lot closer now than the first AFD and it's no longer such a problematic article. --Rividian (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What about this. And I'm pretty sure now that there must be more of these. — Parent5446 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a start. But is the "Australian BDSM Information Site" a reliable source? I'm just thinking about this as I would any other questionable article. Say there was an article on some World of Warcraft term, a lot of people wouldn't really make much of a fan-written essay about the term if the only publisher was a WoW fansite. But here we have an enthusiast-written, enthusiast-published article, just on a different subject... is it really that different than the Warcraft example? --Rividian (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a topic where most of the sources will be books. The Washington Post just isn't going to write a lot of stories on this topic. Google Books shows an abundance of coverage on BDSM parties, and these are just the ones scanned to G-books. BDSM is a big culture and the parties are a major component of that. --Oakshade (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I just said that I realize there is evidence of passing mentions of this topic, so links to more passing mentions (as picked up by a Google books search) doesn't really tell me anything new. Traditional sources do write about sexual topics that are of genuine importance, such as

Many (but not all) listed there are more than "passing mentions" and we are only able to see samples of these books. While i don't have access to the entire books, there is indication that many of the books go into more detail and perhaps even have entire chapters dedicated to BDSM parties. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It documents a real activity, and I can see no reason it should be removed. A quick google finds hundreds of thousands of pages on bdsm play parties, clubs organizing same, etc. Bushytails (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Abstaining from giving my opinion. However, as linked above, this article was nominated for deletion by User:Rividian previously, and I closed it as "No consensus". What has not been mentioned, as near as I can tell, is that my close of the debate was contested in WP:DRV, by Rividian, located here, later to be closed by Rividian himself when he saw this (premature} AfD. The consensus at the DRV discussion was leaning very strongly towards "Endorse closure", despite Rividian's wrong assertions in his DRV closing statement ("...which is what consensus for this DRV was anyway..") otherwise. This is a premature AfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad faith nomination since this was just here and deletion review and these facts were not mentioned in the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Whether or not it was a bad nom the subject is certainly notable with books, seminars and workshops devoted to the subject. Traditionally an underground phenomena within LGBT, kink and leather communities BDSM play parties have gone mainstream and plenty of reliable sources can be found to support the subject. Banjeboi 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Categories, Templates, Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review

• Misplaced Pages deletion sorting