Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glory hole (sexual)


 * 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 fairly obvious keep. MER-C 09:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Glory hole (sexual)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has never had a reliable source. Almost every sentence is tagged fact, and rightly so as the whole thing reads like an essay. There might just be enough reliably sourced material for a short paragraph at glory hole, but this article is part speculation, part howto and entirely without sources we can use per policy. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; AFD is not cleanup. —Angr 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; There should definitely be an article about glory holes. See angr's comment above.--Victor falk 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources exist (although I'm at work and have no intention of searching or linking to any) and this is certainly a notable phenomenon. Otto4711 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There's certainly no doubt that this use of "glory hole" is in common usage. And I'm sure that it's been discussed in books somewhere - people write dissertaions about this stuff. Leave it and let someone who cares clean it up. If you don't know where to look, Google won't help - too many porn hits. MarkBul 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Google Books finds plenty of reliable references. Gordonofcartoon 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: AFD is not cleanup. Technically that point was raised already, but I felt it important enough to be made twice. --Kizor 00:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep From what I hear, AfD is not cleanup. Maxamegalon2000 05:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per MarkBul. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; I think you should cover everything, why not keep it? I didn't know what it was until I looked it up here. If it is not on wikipedia it is like it does not exist. -nmb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.77.30 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 September 2007
 * Keep. Per MarkBul and Gordonofcartoon. Benjiboi 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Otto4711, MarkBul, Angr, Gordonofcartoon, and all the rest. Term is in common usage within, at least, the gay male community. Added several references, including slang dictionaries, so there are sufficient references in place now, I think. Article does need cleanup, however, needs cleanup does not equal needs deletion, as long as it's intrinsically notable (as this is), and reliable sources are available (as they are). — Becksguy 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SNOW seems to apply here. article has references now, Viperix 00:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with WP:SNOW per Viperix. — Becksguy 00:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very common usage, rund a google search.Ryoung122 08:35, 22 September 2007 (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.