Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to Mouth

Ass to mouth was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Title is too vulgar, and the majority of the edits have been made by only one person. Too limited a subject, is this page really nessesary? [maestro] 06:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Oral-Anal sex covers the topic 142.154.35.248 01:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not making a vote as I haven't researched this, but the title being vulgar is not grounds for deletion. Shane King 07:13, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Many wikipedia articles deal with limited subjects. This is certainly true of articles dealing with human sexuality (see Anilingus). Furthermore, a fair number of articles have been written by but one person. Furthermore, this article is not prurient -- it addresses possible causes for A2M's rise in popularity as of late in American pornography. I vote for retention. It has been proposed that both Anilingus and Ass to Mouth be grouped under a new article to be entitled Oral-Anal Sex. I would prefer that Ass to Mouth be given a less vulgar name, but there seems to be no technical term for this sex act in existance. At Wikipedia, we should document our subjects, not create new terms for them. Of course, if a reduction in the title's vulgarity were deemed absolutely necessary, it could be called "Anal to Oral", following the age-old convention that English words with Latin or Romance sources are considered more refined than their Germanic equivalants.
 * I just checked -- "Anal to Oral" wouldn't be permitted, as Wikipedia has a policy against the inclusion of neologisms See No_original_research for more info about this.
 * The term "Rimming" is commonly used to refer to oral-anal contact, and is currently used as a redirect to Anilingus. It isn't a technical term, but it isn't crude either.
 * Keep in some form, but probably by redirecting to an article which covers the topic, such as one on pornographic film clichés: this act appears, so far, to be a creation of the pornographic film industry -- Karada 11:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't have any problem with the title but there is nothing to say about the practice that you couldn't figure out for yourself from its name. The inclusion of health information is entirely spurious. It's mildly curious that it has become prominent in porn but is that enough to merit an article? I await the vote on anal double stuffing with bated breath.Dr Zen 12:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pardon me, I've got to save my ass. - Shrek. No encyclopedic info IMO, but that applies to most of our sex how-to articles too. Let's face it, sex is fascinating. No vote. Andrewa 12:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: At very best, this is duplicate material.  A redirect to annilingus is fine, but redirects are the best way to handle the tee-hee topic names.  Geogre 14:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not that it much matters, but it's a different thing from anilingus entirely and a redirect would be completely inappropriate.Dr Zen 14:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Right. I'm not advocating any merge.  I didn't want this subject matter redirected, just the name.  I.e. I thought "Someone typing 'ass to mouth' in our search field should expect to get what?"  I figured that someone doing that probably wasn't looking for the sodomy-sodomy thing but, rather, anillingus.  That's what I was thinking, anyway. Geogre 20:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Heehaw. The whole thing is merely ano-pornography. Pull the chain on it. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 15:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect somewhere. As to where, it would take someone who actually had the courage to click on that spam. (shudders). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:36, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Both anilingus and ass to mouth now redirect to anal-oral contact which is the merged content of both articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:20, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Can we now vote on deleting that article? It has absolutely nothing to offer that you could not figure out from the words themselves, except from the Clinton tittletattle.Dr Zen 01:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Retain as redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you don't want to read about it, don't search for it.  We're not the sanitization police, so to speak.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 00:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I agree, RaD, we ought not to be but "oral-anal contact" is the whole of the content. There is nothing more to say, unless perhaps we undertake a study of oral-anal contact through the ages or add our favourite anecdotes. Perhaps that bit from Heavenly Powers with the chairs and the boys?Dr Zen 01:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm going to pretend to not know what you're talking about. :) &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 19:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ewwww... but doesn't seem to be duplicating information (Making me read it all to check that.. cruel cruel VfD), and is encyclopedic. &#8212;Florescentbulb 03:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's ... well, it's certainly a thorough treatment of the subject. Being disturbing isn't grounds for deletion, provided we try to be NPOV, so I think it should be kept. The proposed merge doesn't make sense to me, as the practices referred to seem to be substantially different things. Factitious 03:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think Wikipedia should cover pornography (what it is, what are the social legal issues surrounding it), but going into immense detail on every possible weird pornographic sexual activity will offend many readers, and doesn't contribute to the goal of making an ENCYCLOPEDIA, as opposed to the "Pornography Buyers Guide". I especially worry about the fact that children may come to Wikipedia, trying to find answers to school assignments, and then find this page. I certaintly wouldn't want my children reading about this, and a great many parents would feel the same. --JebeddiahSpringfield 04:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep offensive practice, but good article Wolfman 05:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Offensive page names should be avoided without a good reason. Move elsewhere; oral-anal contact has been suggested as a target. Do not delete the content - apparently a worthy topic . Rewrite - the article does not need to contain repetitive vulgar language, and add some kind of a disclaimer at its top. There is no harm in keeping the redirect. - Mike Rosoft 13:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it once again, it seems to me that the topic is a bit too limited. It deserves a mention on anal-oral contact (I believe that anal-oral sex would be a more appropriate article name) but not an article for itself. A cut-and-paste merge with anilingus is not an appropiriate solution, either; it resulted in a lot of duplicity in the article.
 * Keep, either under the slang name of ass to mouth or ATM (sex), or in the oral-anal contact article. The latter is quite unfortunate, for it has nothing to do with anilingus and there is in fact no oral-anal contact at all. In any case, the practice may be disgusting but should be covered nevertheless, just like bukkake. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 16:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: valid subject. Distaste for the topic or name should not bias us to delete this when we keep articles of way less notability / notoriety daily.  And if kept, it should be under this name; there is nothing in Wikipedia's naming conventions that says that prudery trumps 'most common name', which this is. &mdash;Morven 19:31, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should seek the most precise or most common name. The precise and accurate name wouldn't be "ass" under any circumstances.  First, only Americans use "ass" for rectum ("arse" for others).  Second, the whole topic is not about an ass to a mouth; it's about removing from an anus to insert into a mouth.  Next, though, saying that it is a "valid subject" is questionable, as many in the VfD voting are suggesting that this is strictly a porno industry myth.  I suppose it's possible that a lot of people out there have multiple partners simultaneously who are seeking anal and then oral sex in a hurry, but it's not really very likely.  Finally, though, if we were to say that this is a common problem, who on earth is going to search by this term?  Geogre 22:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Frequently, we AVOID precise names in favor of common names. This is in fact general Wikipedia policy.  As to validity -- aren't porn industry myths ALSO valid subject material?  Though 'myth' isn't exactly the right word here, since we're talking about a real phenomenon IN PORN.  It is probably the case that this practice is exceedingly rare outside of porn, and the name is definitely one given by the porn industry.  I detect in your reply here that you consider the porn industry and its consumers not a matter for an encyclopedia, and I disagree.  Who's going to search for it under that term?  Anyone familiar with phrases used in the porn industry, of course! which as you say, is the primary source of this stuff anyway.  &mdash;Morven 23:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * We do opt for most common names, I agree. I don't think this is it, though.  I'm not sure that the practice has a common name.  That's why I thought the precise name was better.  As for my feelings about porn and encyclopedias, I'm indifferent.  I'm against porn starlets in, because their careers are usually extremely brief, and I'm against listing porno films the way we do mainstream movies because the numbers are so amazingly large and because the market, being run by shady folks with the most aggressively capitalistic motives, frequently chops and pastes "films" into five or six other forms and resells them.  The more stable parts of the industry should be covered -- the major studios, the stars with very long careers (Seka, Jenna Jameson and the like) -- but that's not the issue here.  I wouldn't vote against an article because it was distasteful, so to speak, unless I thought it put us in legal jeopardy (e.g. the pedophiliac stuff).  I pretty much don't care.  I was just saying that the name is a real issue here, because we should be precise or use the most common name, and I don't think this is the first nor that there is a last.  Geogre 03:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The phenomen is well known under this name and needs to be covered. bbx 21:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sure there are also people who find psoriasis disgusting, but this fact does not make the phenomenon (including the name by which it is generally known) less encyclopedic. Wikikiwi 22:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. DCEdwards1966 03:24, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Elf-friend 07:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not like anyone will stumble upon this by accident and like it or not it exists so should be documented. It even lacks information, like when and where did it appear JidGom 18:19, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Dr Zen above Takalak 09:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely. A valid article on a real practice and a valid sexology topic.  It should be kept separate from the oral-anal contact article since it is a related, but different practice.  AlexQ 01:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Proxy. I vote what ever Jimmy Wales votes. --Rebroad 12:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.