Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced orgasm


 * 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. Clearly no consensus to delete. Should probably be merged in its current state, unless someone wants to actually incorporate some of those prospective sources. Shimeru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Forced orgasm

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is term promoted by the BDSM porn industry. Most of this article is unsourced. The only sourced parts are about involuntary orgasm, which has a separate section in another article, and I don't see how it differs from the notion conveyed here. So, this article appears to be a poorly sourced WP:CFORK. Pcap ping  23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep — This seems a valid referenced article; I don't see that the nominator offers sufficient or valid reason for deletion in their nomination. WCityMike 00:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which don't reference the stuff that makes this different from involuntary orgasm. See WP:BOMBARD. I have the impression you haven't even read the nomination. Pcap ping  12:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with Orgasm though that article seems to be getting a bit long no other section has a main article for it, and there are only the two paragraphs that aren’t in the Involuntary orgasms section so it wouldn't add much and would seem to be consistent. --Wintonian (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep specific  sexual practice, though the literature on topics of this sort is not primarily in what we normally consider standard reliable sources. It's good there's enough here to defend the article. We need to expand these topics, not merge them. I sometimes think WP is surprisingly prudish.   DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have references for this practice (as opposed to refs for involuntary orgasm) please add them. None are present in the article right now. Pcap ping  12:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NRVE. Claritas § 13:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wow--Google scholar hits going back to 1888!  Plenty of Books hits, too, including a discussion in an academic criticism of Yukio Mishima (neat!).  This one needs to be expanded.  Heather (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. There are no google scholar hits (other than trivial mentions) and the book mentioned is a literary critique. Closest thing is:
 * --Savonneux (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here we go again. People want to censor WP and use this cloak that its unsourced.  This is all over the "underground" websites and yes, blogs that dominate (not in the BDSM way) this kind of source of information.  Yes pornography makes a commercial clutter of finding legitimate information.  For these reasons, it is essential that WP provide a sane link to information.OsamaPJ (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2010 (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.