Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob


 * 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Handjob

 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)

Handjob AfD arguments
Handjob - WP:NEO states that all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. In evaluating the references in in Handjob, #1, #2, and #3 which is all 3 of the references in the article, they are not books or articles about "Handjob" but are only articles that use the term trivially as a neologism and without discussing it as such. All of these references thus fail WP:NEO. In the External links section, a link is posted to a Usenet posting, which not only fails the heightened reference criteria of WP:NEO but the general criteria for all Wikipedia articles at Reliable sources which states Usenet posts may not be used as references. The second External link points to a website that uses the word "handjob" to describe sexual technique but it is not a reliable secondary source. Therefore, and "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", this article must be deleted per WP:NEO and any pertinent content placed into Foreplay / Heavy petting where it belongs. CyberAnth 01:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fingering AfD arguments
Fingering (sexual act) - is a slang term for Manual-genital stimulation and/or masturbation. As such, this article should be about the etymology and history of the term "fingering", a neologism. The article has been tagged since Sept. 2006 as not citing it sources, and has had dozens of edits since then, none of which have introduced sources. Per WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term", ""even though there may be many examples of the term in use". CyberAnth 01:19, 3 January 2007

Handjob AfD comments

 * Redirect & Merge reliably sourced content into Masturbation Mutual masturbation Bwithh 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, reference #3 does seem most pertinent to masturbation. I am also evaluating it for use in an article I am drafting Religious views of masturbation. CyberAnth 02:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * !?! Wouldn't mutual masturbation be a better target? ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, what trials said. Bwithh 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Bwithh. Nothing more than a synonym; no justification for its own article. Tevildo 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, for reasons given by Bwithh. Malla  nox  02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to mutual masturbation --SeizureDog 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I was adding the reliably sourced content it did seem to me that a merger to masturbation was in order, given what the sources were actually saying about hand jobs. However, there have been two proposed mergers discussed on the article's talk page, both of which were opposed.  I suggest that all of the above editors review the several arguments already made against merger on Talk:Handjob and comment on them, because they have yet to be addressed and countered by any editor in this discussion. Incidentally: CyberAnth is missing the point of WP:NEO in the nomination.  If this were an article about a neologism, then we would need sources that discuss the word.  But it isn't.  ("hand job" isn't even a neologism, as the fact that one of the sources dates from 1975 should clearly imply.)  It's an article about the actual thing that the phrase denotes, a hand job.  So the fact that the sources simply use the phrase in their discussions of hand jobs is entirely proper. Uncle G 03:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, re the recent discussions about merging that have gone on previously, they got bogged down in who was doing what to who. A handjob is a kind of masturbation therefore the merge is valid in my opinion. Malla  nox  04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge although I would suggest proposed mergers for content to both Masturbation and Mutual masturbation to allow the editors involved in those articles the greatest amount of influence in the process. It would not be that big a loss though if we were to userfy this article to CyberAnth and worked from there.  skrshawk  (  Talk  |  Contribs  ) 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - putting it in both places is a good idea, and perhaps in the places I pointed out too. But what the heck does your last sentence mean? CyberAnth 04:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy is to move a section/article into a userspace while being reworked into a new or existing article. I mentioned this as a possibility since you said you were working on a new article on the subject. skrshawk  (  Talk  |  Contribs  ) 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - why don't we rename Semen to Cum? Or Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Or Cunnilingus to Going down on? Or Fellatio to Head job? Better yet, how about renaming handjob to Manual stimulation (sexual) or giving it its small place in Human sexual behavior? CyberAnth 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator has not proposed a valid reason for deletion. There is no way that a word for which I easily found a 1968 citation qualifies as a neologism, the criteria for which include "recently coined". I would not be averse to a merge proposal, properly done, but the nomination is on invalid grounds. This is longstanding sexual slang, probably somewhat older than forty years. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dhartungh stated that handjob "is longstanding sexual slang" yet he uses a reference in which it is used to describe a slang term, a neologism at the time, in an article that is not about its use as slang but treats it like some scholarly encyclopedic term for Manual stimulation (sexual). It falls under neologism, therefore. Again, why not rename Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Because it is not the scholarly encyclopedic term for the act. Any article titled Fucking would need to be about the etymology and history of usage of the word "fuck". Same with this article handjob. CyberAnth 05:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no idea what your first sentence means. You seem to be confusing a deletion discussion with an article. Please try to make more sense. Just because you envision the article being "about the word" does not mean that it a) is, or b) that others see it that way. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, not only is the term in use for (at least) 38 years, refuting the "recently coined" criterion, it appears in the following dictionaries: Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English, Random House Unabridged Dictionary, MacQuarie Dictionary Online, and WordNet, refuting the second criterion that it is a word that "does not appear in dictionaries". --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it appears you might need to read WP:NEO completely. CyberAnth 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, perhaps you could quote the appropriate section to which you are referring. Precision is appreciated. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the nomination. CyberAnth 00:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is obviously pointless. You're proceeding from a completely unsupported contention that the word falls under our definition of neologism, and saying that it fails to meet the guidelines, but you have not presented any credible evidence that it is a neologism. Obviously we can continue going around in "is! is not!" circles. If you had a better rationale for deletion -- and you obviously don't, you think the topic is valid and should be given a different name -- you would have put it in the nomination. So you're basically putting something up for AFD that you do not want deleted. You just want a clinical name for the article. I'm sorry, to me that is a violation of WP:POINT and I'm calling you on that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep apart and rewrite with more information and better references. Masturbation and Mutual masturbation and Handjob are three very distinct sexual concepts. You could roll all the sexual topics in Wikipedia under sex. If the handjob article needs better references, then add the proper tag. If you want a merge, discuss it on the article discussion page. This is for deletion of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Has multiple verifiable, reliable, independent references. Merge recommendations are to inappropriate topics. Edison 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is not about mutual masturbation, it is about masturbation of a male as a primary sexual activity, often in the context of commercial sex. I know of no better term for this--and the apparent attempts of others to find one show their similar inability. it is not "mutual" anything, it is much more specific than "sexual stimulation", and more specific than "masturbation", and much more specific than petting, and not necessarily or even usually part of foreplay. it is much too old to be a neologism. It refers to an activity--it is not just about the word.  RANorton & Edison have it right. Admittedly, the article is a little incoherent, but that calls for editing, not deletion. DGG 07:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I totally agree with DGG here, a handjob is by no means an act of Mutual masturbation. wtfunkymonkey 07:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep with a weak rename and/or redirect. Obviously notable, no problems finding sources, practically requires an article in it's own right. My only problem, albiet a very small one, is with the name. It's not exactly encyclopedic, but I can't think of a better name. Perhaps a merge with other articles on Manual stimulation (sexual). wtfunkymonkey 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as stated before mutual masturbation and "handjob" are different things and so should not be merged. Furthermore, the article topic does not fit WP:NEO, no valid reason given to delete.--Jersey Devil 08:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - To clarify: Handjob is a colloquial term for Manual-Genital Stimulation, the term the consensus of scholarship uses to describe the act. The yet uncreated article Manual-Genital Stimulation should mention that one of several colloquial terms for the act is "handjob". Therefore, since handjob is a colloquial term for Manual-Genital Stimulation, an article titled Handjob needs to be about the term as a colloquialism. Does that clear things up? CyberAnth 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because it's wrong, being based upon an incorrect idea of what the article should be about. An article entitled handjob should be about hand jobs.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary.  An article about the word (more properly, the phrase) is a dictionary article.  As previously mentioned, the dictionary already has a stub article about the phrase at hand job.  Encyclopaedia articles are not about the words or phrases but about the people, concepts, events, places, or things that the words or phrases denote. If, as you assert, manual-genital stimulation and handjob are the same thing (which requires evidence that females can be given hand jobs, given that the literature talks about manual-genital stimulation of females), then the one should redirect to the other, since two articles about a single concept are Duplicate articles.  The one problem with the "Use the fomal name that is used in scholarship." idea is that it is in direct opposition to Naming conventions (common names). AFD is not the correct place to discuss a simple issue with an article's title.  It doesn't require administrator privileges in order to rename an article, and doesn't involve deletion. Uncle G 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If, as UncleG says, a handjob is different from Manual-Genital Stimulation, then handjob needs to be about the term as such. Naming conventions (common names) is one reason why. We don't name sexual intercourse by the common name Fucking.  We use the common scholarly name. A dictionary entry and an article like Fuck that covers the etymology and history of a word are very different matters. Both male and female manual-genital stimulation can be covered in Manual-genital stimulation, and colloquialisms such as "handjob" and "third base" can be cited as colloquialisms for the act. CyberAnth 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you insist, use a more appropriate term and redirect. Wikikiwi 10:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it simply is not a neologism, but a common word. Therefore, WP:NEO does not apply. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fuck is an even more common word. But notice how Fuck is not about sexual intercourse but about "fuck" as a term. It uses Jesse Sheidlower's book The F Word for much of its info, which is a book about the word "fuck". Inthe same way, Handjob needs to be about the term, not Manual-Genital Stimulation. CyberAnth 12:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopaedia articles should be about the people, concepts, events, places, and things that the titles denote.  Uncle G 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So move the darn article to Manual-Genital Stimulation. Perfectly fine with me. But you are requesting deletion here, which is not fine with me. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does it "need to be about the term"? You haven't given any reasoning other than a lot of, er, hand-waving. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Mutual masturbation, as it is the same thing - a handjob is just a form of mutual masturbation. with Mutual masturbation to Manual-genital stimulation.  Note that Blowjob redirects to oral sex.  Proto ::  ►  12:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not the same thing, as a handjob (or Manual-Genital Stimulation for that matter) is not necessarily mutual. That said, I have no objections to merging Mutual masturbation with Handjob in a single article Manual-Genital Stimulation. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I've changed my suggestion.  Proto ::  ►  13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sdsds 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deals with a subject that is patently real. Maybe the article can be improved.  But it is not the same subject as mutual masturbation, although it is related. Tarinth 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to mutual masturbation, on a second reading it appears to deal with the subject. Tarinth 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't merge, i'ts NOT mutual masturbation. If someone would like to rename it and rewrite to look more scientifical they should discuss this at WP:RM. Max S em 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG said it all. Akihabara 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or reorganize this and related topics without deletion. The topics which need to be covered include at least:
 * Manual stimulation of the genitals by another person (a handjob)
 * Masturbation, which can be various types of stimulation of the genitals by one's self or a partner, not necessarily manual
 * Mutual masturbation, when two people are involved in masturbation. --Strait 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any serious argument against including descriptions of all three practices under the main Masturbation article, and merging both Handjob and Mutual masturbation to it? Tevildo 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. While "masturbation" can mean one person stimulating another, it is much more often associated with a person stimulating themselves only.  Putting all of these topics at masturbation would be confusing. Moreover, the phenomenon of stimulating a partner is very different in many ways from that of stimulating one's self.  There is a clear division of information, so it makes sense to have at least two pages. --Strait 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to mutual masturbation] Sci ence man 123  talk 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep more sources can be added, but the topic of the article is different from mutual masturbation, so they should not be merged. TSO1D 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep never let it be said I want to do away with handjobs. Seriously, I don't understand why anyone would suggest merging into another unsourced article as a corrective measure. TonyTheTiger 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. Ridiculous nomination. Artw 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep with a weak merge and redirect to Manual-Genital Stimulation, which should also cover Fingering (sexual act) and Mutual masturbation.
 * Strong keep Usage is too widespread to use WP:NEO as justification for deletion. Caknuck 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, together with fingering (sexual act) to a new article manual genital stimulation. (This is on the grounds that these are not quite the same thing as mutual masturbation, which implies that each party masturbates the other; fingering/handjobs, on the other hand, can be one-way.) -- The Anome 10:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is sourced and uses of the term go back decades. Not the same as mutual masturbation. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Jooler 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep definately not a neologism. Just H 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is verified by its sources, and the word is not a neologism. A merge with mutual masturbation is inappropriate, because a hand job is typically not mutual. A merge with masturbation is inappropriate, because masturbation is typically self stimulation. Nick Graves 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The guideline (and I stress, it is a guideline, not a policy) to which CyberAnth refers is found here: WP:NEO. Although CyberAnth's arguments are valid that articles on neologisms should be properly referenced, I do not believe anyone (but Rip van Winkle) would consider "hand job" a neologism. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary the term originated at least in the 1940's.
 * If we define neologisms as terms coined since 1940, and subsequently apply WP:NEO then we should also call for the deletion of the following articles, as they are :
 * Linoleum (1860)
 * Laundromat
 * Dixiecrat (1948)
 * Meritocracy (1958)
 * Crock pot (1960)
 * Jumping the shark
 * Republicrat (1985)
 * Dog-whistle politics (1990)
 * Soccer mom (1992)
 * Now I understand a certain need to police Wikipedia, but this is absurd, and perhaps an attempt at censorship.
 * Twas Now 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

--
 * Keep per DGG. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per every single user calling you out as a would-be censor. a simple glance at your user page and contributions shows a distinct WP:POINT Violation, you're going after any article about sex that is supported with anythign less than the entire Kinsey Report or the Bible. Every sexual term you think is slang you've shot as a neologism. uh oh. I bet one syllable of THAT word will get me busted, watch out. ThuranX 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fingering AfD comments
Comments merged from Articles for deletion/Fingering (sexual act)


 * Delete. Though it is well-known, it is still a neologism.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

* Keep Comment - per discussion on handjob. This is a well-known term; hardly a nelogism. There seems to be an agenda in these recent nominations; please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Akihabara 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (struck threw second vote portion and made into a Comment because user voted the same way above) CyberAnth 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )


 * comment I think it may be better to hold off until a consensus is reached with Handjob. Adding yet another AfD discussion serves no purpose other than to dilute the discussion. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not at all be averse to merging this AfD into the handjob AfD, but I do not know how to do it. Does someone else? If so, please feel free. CyberAnth 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with the idea of using the discussion on handjob. let's see what happens. --Tainter 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I find this whole process incomprehensible. "We should rewrite the article so that it falls under WP:NEO, so that we can delete it." It's really verging on WP:POINT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge Possible merge to mutual masturbation, but the term 'fingering' is NOT a neologism, it's been used in numerous publications (any 'about your body' book ever written that covers masturbations I'd guess), and it's a distinct act. Saying this all belongs in mutual masturbation is something of a transitive error of logic, just because fingering is a kind of manual stimulation and often used in mutual masturbation play doesn't mean it's not a distinct act.  I would only caution that it should be careful to avoid wp:NOT a how-to guide, there are enough sites for that as it is.  I see nothing in WP:not that would preclude this article, it is a notable concept, verifiable, researched (Kinsey study, various studies of female sexual response, ect.) and discussed, performed in bedrooms across the world on a nightly basis and in no way unencyclopedic.  I hesitate to call it such, but I think there might be a possible combined WP:point and WP:not censored issue here. Wintermut3 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is similar to the discussion on handjob. I don't consider this term to be neologism, and thus I believe the article should stay up. Of course, it needs more work, but it shouldn't be deleted. TSO1D 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, together with handjob to a new article manual genital stimulation. -- The Anome 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep (as this AfD was not fully merged with the handjob AfD, I am also voting here). Comment - This is not a neologism, so WP:NEO does simply not apply. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (struck threw second vote portion and made into a Comment because user voted the same way above CyberAnth 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )


 * Delete We don't need this type of rubbish on Wikipedia, it doesn't seem to fit into our guidelines and really all pages like this do is bring in vandalism. Its a little sickening having pages like this, and plus, still being a huge online encyclopedia, people are not going to know and even think of looking for a page like this. We don't need it.--Rasillon 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment This is not a valid reason for deleting. WP is not censored. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not because it's a neologism (word is decades old to my knowledge) - it's slang. Article should be deleted because it is essentially a word definition and can shifted to Wiktionary.  (And I would suggest the same for handjob.)  Emeraude 10:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

comment Right. As far as the name goes, it is only necessary to establish that the name is the correct name & that has been clearly demonstrated. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - For defenders of this article "as is", instead of wasting your energy here, I suggest you expend it making the article worthy to keep as titled Fingering. "A topic is notable if and only "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." "The subject of" does not equal <U>merely mentioned in</U>. Right now, the cold hard facts mean the article does not meet that criteria. Note: Culling together sources that merely mention or use Fingering <U>as a colloquialism or slang term</U> only asserts that the article is, in fact, Synthesis and Original Research. I suggest if you want to keep this article, you best expend your efforts finding sources where Fingering *AS A SPECIFIC TERM* "has been <U>the subject of</U> multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other", or else concede that any adequately sourced material belongs in Manual-genital stimulation. Notability is not subjective. Meeting notability per Wikipedia policies, and only that, is what will keep this article. - CyberAnth 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I disagree. It is the subject of the article (the act or concept variously called "fingering", or a particular kind of "manual genital stimulation") that needs to satisfy the quotes you emphasize ("... multiple, non-trivial published works"). It is not the case that someone needs to publish a work about "fingering AS A SPECIFIC TERM". Who could possibly write a whole work about the name of something? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - wikipedia is not about censorship so this article should be included, I would go as far to say that it isn't even a slang term R y a n P o s t l e t h w a i t e See the mess I've created or lets have banter 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep not a neologism. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

--
 * Delete Wikipedia is an encyolpedia, not a place for learning about inapropriate sexual acts such as this one, I think we should just get rid of this article and move it to Wiktionary, because really, people are not going to expect to find pages on useless non-important sexual acts on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rasillon (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
 * "inapropriate sexual acts", you just made me smile :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that there are an awful lot of articles that contain information about "inapropriate sexual acts" - you better get started with the purification. wtfunkymonkey 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * useless sexual acts--that is even funnier. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merged AfD comments

 * Comment, please add all new arguments to this section, now the two AfDs have been fully merged. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * comment to all the above Please don't take this the wrong way, it's hard to say this without sounding a bit terse, but if you're going to argue for deletion, a valid argument is vital.  Neologism is a valid argument, one I dissagree with, but a valid argument; "disgusting" (so are many things, subjective criteria and violates wp:not censored)"unlikely to be searched for" (so are a lot of things, that isn't a deletion criterion) are not valid deletion arguments founded in wiki policy.  Wikilawyering the exact definition of "subject of a non-trivial work" is unessesary and serves no purpose. A merge would eliminate the uniqueness of the two articles.  Renames with redirects would be a suitable compromise, to me, creating Manual Genital Stimulation (male) and Manual Genital Stimulation (female).  Wintermut3


 * Keep; wikipedia should use common English terms. Neither handjob or fingering is obscene, and both are much more common than the medical atrocity you want to redirect to.--Prosfilaes 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect. Both are informal usage not formal phrases for this, and the reuslt is duplication.  The first major section in hand job seems to be a piece of local nonsense that has no obvious relevance outside of that one town.  Nothing to do with censorship, everythign to do with building a credible encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per the WP:NEO arguments, that page says neologisms are "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." One has been in use for at least 35 years and the other at least 15, and both appear in dictionaries. The merge suggestions ignore the fact that the two articles examine two completely different acts. Also agree with Prosfilaes's point above - Wikipedia should reflect common sense. Orderinchaos78 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unfortunately I feel that this AfD has been horrifically tainted with inappropriate comments on several sides of the debate. I'm afraid my original intention of closing the Fingering AfD was misapplied, it should have been closed not merged. We should have slowed down and waited for the Handjob AfD to reach a consensus, then use it as a precedent to apply to other articles. Instead we're running into another cluster-fuck discussion where it will be impossible to reach a clear consensus. Let's all calm down and make intelligent arguments that are backed up by wikipedia policy. Articles that attract vandalism (George W Bush) or some deem as "inappropriate" (Homosexuality) are not valid arguments for deletion, and neither is it a valid argument to keep an article because you heard of it before. There are policy backed arguments to use on either side of the table, let's try to debate guidelines instead of morality. -- wtfunkymonkey 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep these are the common terms used for the activities in question. Indeed, "Handjob" returned 274 hits on Nexis.  However, I am agreeable to merge and redirect to Manual Genital Stimulation, or renaming, as a compromise.-- danntm T C 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, I just searched LexisNexis. I came up with 16 hits for handjob. Let's look at the top three most relevant links to get an idea of them.
 * 1) "USA Today Gives 2007 Sebring a Handjob" - this is a pickup from a blog by some nobody, an entry 158 words long, where the nobody chides USA today for giving a bad review to Chrysler's Sebring. The bad review is USA Today's handjob.
 * 2) "Best of the Week That Was" - this is another nobody blog pickup, 171 words long. The term handjob appears in a list on the blog entry of titles to other nobody blog entries.
 * 3) "Media Bubble: PSA Bombs" - yet another nobody blog pickup, 100 words long. As above, the term handjob appears in a list on the blog entry of titles to other nobody blog entries. The title is, "Oprah Winfrey gives Hearst Tower a handjob, calls it "out of the box." Yeah, it's that kind of morning."
 * A peruse of the remaining 13 hits indicate the same sort of content. For anyone with LexisNexis access, here is the URL searching the database with "handjob".
 * CyberAnth
 * Explanation Please excuse me for not better explaining my search. We probably searched different databases in LexisNexis.  I searched in "News, All (English, Full Text)" in LexisNexis Total Reasearch System, which is it's legal offering, while I see you searched in Academic Universe.  If found hits from both blogs and newspapers like the Canberra Times and The Guardian.  These hits indicate that the term is in relatively common usage to describe the act in question, and I decline to apply WP:NEO.-- danntm T C 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I see it, there are two separate issues: (a) Is manual masturbation sufficiently distinct from masturbation in general to deserve its own article?  (b)  Are male (Handjob) and female (Fingering (sexual act)) manual masturbation sufficiently different from each other to deserve their own articles?  I would answer "No" to both questions, and support a merge of both disputed articles into Masturbation.  However, I would also regard answering "Yes" to (a) and "No" to (b), and merging the two disputed articles into a new one, Manual masturbation, to be an acceptable solution. Tevildo 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced. Fingering can be a form of masturbation, but is not always. The term fingering also has some sociolinguistic significance. An article separate from masturbation concerning the term and the act may thus be justified. However, with no sources, this article is unverified and ought to be deleted. Nick Graves 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--
 * Comment from CyberAnth

Someone above said, "Who could possibly write a whole work about the name of something?"

Fact is, articles constantly appear in various journals of linguistics (and related disciplines) that trace the origins, usages, and meanings of slang words, neologisms, and the like.

An entire book was written about the word "Fuck", as a word. See Jesse Sheidlower, The F Word ISBN 0-375-70634-8. The WP article Fuck is a nice example of an article about the word "Fuck" as a word, although it is duplicated in History of the word "fuck".

Do research with a University library's databases.

I searched with EBSCO with <- handjob -> and found two articles - both about Punk rock that mentioned the band Midget Handjob.

I then searched EBSCO with <- fingering AND sexual -> and then <- fingering AND sex ->. Nothing came up.

I then searched it with <- genital stimulation NOT self-stimulation NOT masturbation ->. 17 articles.

I then did with JSTOR what I did with EBSCO above. Keep in mind these are two of the most major databases of academic journals in English in the world.

<- handjob -> brought 2 results. Article #1 was about college student behaviors. It quoted a student using the word "handjob" as a slang term. Article #2 was a study of prostitutes. It quoted a prostitute using the word "handjob" as a slang term.

<- genital stimulation -> brought 275 articles.

The references cited in Handjob are from articles with prostitution as their subject, and in that context the slang word handjob would of course appear. No additional comment needed here.

Actually, I will. The references are themselves an argument for treating handjob as a neologism, a slang word, in an article about it as such, because that is exactly how it is treated in the references.

Fingering (sexual act) does not have any references.

Miriam-Webster Dictionary is considered by Wikipedia policy, along with the Oxford dictionary, to be the most authoritative.

Handjob does not appear in the Miriam-Webster Dictionary, see here. Neither does hand job, see here.

Handjob or hand job does appear in other non-slang dictionaries. The definitions all say "a slang word for masturbation." And it appears in every slang dictionary I checked.

Fingering turns up no specific sexual definition in Miriam-Webster, see here, nor any other one I checked.

Fingering as a sexual act appeared in several slang dictionaries I checked.

"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (WP:NEO).

Yes indeed, handjob and fingering are certainly "used widely or within certain communities". The policy says that is not enough.

It might be argued, however, that handjob and fingering have been around for 20 - 40 years, so that is not "recent'. The objection is irrelevant. Neither are in any dictionary except as a slang word. This means they have not been around long enough to move from the slang to regular lexicon of any reliable source.

Articles titled "Fingering (sexual)" and "Handjob" need to be like Fuck, i.e., about the word, its etymology, history, etc.

The acts the slang terms denote should be covered in Genital stimulation. Oral sex, manual-genital stimulation, and masturbation should all have coverage in that one article.

Specifically, Genital stimulation needs to be created. Material in Handjob, Fingering (sexual act), oral sex, and masturbation needs to be incorporated there, and then Handjob and Fingering (sexual act) deleted for the reasons outlined above.

CyberAnth 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment CyberAnth: creating one singular topic for ALL genital stimulation isn't a viable solution in my opinion.  That would lump sex, oral sex, masturbation, mutual masturbation, electro-gential stimulation and more that I probably can't think of right now into a topic that would get so big it'd need to be spun off into seperate topics immediately or shortly after creation.  I think that 'manual genital stimulation (female) and' 'manual genital stimulation (male)' might be more appropriate topics, but the use of a clinical neologism invented as a pure function of wiki categorization isn't for me as valid as using the common colloquial term. For reasons described above, mutual masturbation is not equivilent to manual genital stimulation (fingering and handjobs if you will :P) or masturbation, they are distinct acts.  Masturbation is self-induced sexual arousal and climax, whether it's manual or not (IE it is possible to masturbate without actual manual stimulation, IE by shower head or vibrator) and mutual masturbation is not equivilent to genital stimulation in that it involves both partners masturbating each other simultainiously (in the same way the 69 position is distinct in meaning from oral sex).  In response to the first AfD, a handjob is identical in meaning to male manual genital stimulation, but "fingering" is a distinct activity, seperated from other methods of female manual genital stimulation.  Lumping dissimular articles into a single polyglot whole serves no identifiable purpose in my opinion, and would be akin to combining sex, anal sex and oral sex into a single topic in terms of the dissolution of unique articles for distinct acts. Wintermut3 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If the articles were just stubs I could see merging them, but when medium sized articles get merged it creates more problems than it solves. I get redirected to a page and have to search the page until I find what I am looking for, never sure if I am at the correct page until I find (or don't find) what I came for. Header redirects: Sex work only as long as the header names remain unchanged, which isn't long. Each of these articles already has its own set of external links and usage sections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. CyberAnth writes: "The acts the slang terms denote should be covered in Genital stimulation. Oral sex, manual-genital stimulation, and masturbation should all have coverage in that one article." This really sums up the entire argument, doesn't it? You want to roll everything into one article. You are not arguing that the topics are not valid. You are arguing for a move or a merge. This is not what AFD is for; this is a bad-faith nomination, and should be treated accordingly.
 * On a more diplomatic note, it is very disappointing that you did not look at this problem and think in a collaborative manner. An appropriate way to handle the problem that you see would be to start at WikiProject Sexuality and ask, "Is there any way we can improve these articles? I have some ideas about reorganizing them." You didn't do that, you came up with an argument based entirely on the articles' titles and not their content, and now you're trying to reach consensus on the basis of that wholly inappropriate argument, not giving an inch, even though you have long since conceded that the content belongs on Wikipedia. You just don't like the article name. Please don't waste people's time like this in the future. It's very frustrating to deal with the articles that truly do not belong. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem with an article entitled "handjob", but an article as such needs to be about the slang term, as with fuck. Obviously, some people are not willing to give an inch to concede this and are highly connected to Handjob as presently constituted. CyberAnth 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That simply makes no sense whatsoever and has absolutely no basis in policy. If the topic itself exists and meets WP:V and WP:RS, which hand jobs -- manual manipulation of the penis -- certainly does, then naming should be per naming conventions and at the "most common name", not at some made-up supercategory. Again, you are arguing that the article should be written such that it must be deleted, which is ridiculous, and basically bad faith. With your newest batch of noms, well, you're showing that collaborative processes are not in your kitbag. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all - distinct terms in common usage. Johntex\talk 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all - more tiresome noms Albatross2147 00:10, 7 January 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.