Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car sex


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Peridon (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Car sex

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Car sex is a very common phenomenon. But I think not enough research is done on this topic. The article is completely unreferenced and full of original research. Should be deleted per WP:V and WP:OR. Google books search shows a lot of ghits for "car sex", but those books are either fiction books or how-to-do sex guides. Lack of coverage in academic literature.  Supernova Explosion   Talk  05:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't look for sources at the moment (being in a public place) but I'd expect there to be sources on this. Would support a keep if anything shows up.  We don't need academic literature; Joy of Sex-type publications would be fine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any reason to include this page.JoelWhy (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are most certainly sources out there. A huge number of sources in fact, and even after adding only 3 to the article I am convinced that it is a very notable article.--Coin945 (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How could you make an edit like this where the para start with "Once you have chosen to have car sex, you need to find a location...". See WP:NOTHOW. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  16:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, one of the references is written by Boyé Lafayette De Mente who has no expertise on human sexuality. So Sex And the Japanese: The Sensual Side of Japan is not a reliable source for this article. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-edited the passage to make it sounds a lot less "How-to"-ish. I disagree with you on the other point.--Coin945 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to explain why do you believe De Mente, who's expertise is on business management, not socio-cultural implication on sexuality, who is neither a sociologist, nor a sexologist, can be considered RS. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, how can you argue that he doesn't know what he's talking about? If his expertise lies on "business management", then why on earth would he write a book on such a subject? I believe that the man has sufficient expertise to be able to pull it off without losing his credibility. Also, looking at his Wikipedia page's bibliography, he seems to be an expert in many facets of Japanese life and culture.--Coin945 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems easy enough find academic sources such as Sex and the Automobile: From Rumble Seats to Rockin'Vans and Sex and the Automobile in the Jazz-Age. Warden (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A discussion is going on in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Warden.  Yash  t  101   09:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing nom' notability established. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:11, 23 April 2012 (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.