Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl necklace (sexuality) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Essentially the commentators are split on the question as to whether this is a dictionary definition or whether the page can be expanded to produce a full-blown encyclopaedic article. Taking into account the discussion on the previous AfD I see no easy resolution of this dichotomy through the AfD process. The page has been tagged for merge discussions but has yet to pick up any comments. My suggestion is for interested editors to engage the merge discussions which seem the best option for a consensual way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pearl necklace (sexuality)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary DeeKenn (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A non-notable and trivial topic that does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm actually not sure whether an encyclopedic article on this topic would be possible or not, but the present one definitely isn't it: it's primarily a trivia dump of times its's been mentioned in popular culture. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge: to Cum shot. (Gods, the things you never thought you'd wind up typing on Wikipedia ...)  While I'm sure there are a zillion hits, there's no real notability beyond the other article.    RGTraynor  14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ROTFLOL :) Debate (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, not a serious or educational article. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cum shot Facial (sex act). There are plenty of references to this in books, demonstrating notability. Unless there is enough content to develop it beyond a dictionary definition, then it doesn't need its own article and can be merged to Cum shot Facial (sex act).-- Beloved Freak  16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per  RGTraynor  and  Beloved  Freak .  D C Edwards  1966  16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Belovedfreak's revised merge location.  D C Edwards 1966  21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Cum shot, since it's really a subset of that anyway. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is a dictionary definition, nothing more. (I disagree with merges proposed above; this is the result, not the act.) Frank  |  talk  19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as dictionary definition. I agree with Frank that it doesn't really seem to fit with Cum shot. (Not relevant to the discussion, but ewwwwww!) Aleta  Sing 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that Cum shot is mostly about porn, but it also refers to the act of ejaculation. That's only a small part of the article though, and unreferenced. A more appropriate merge would perhaps be Facial (sex act).-- Beloved Freak  20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Cum shot. I'm with RGTraynor on this...I never thought I'd say anything like this on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, and I prefer facial (sex act) as it's more specific. A cum shot can be any ejaculation, but facial refers specifically to the ejaculation onto the recipient's body. Technically this could be anywhere from the face to the buttocks (and I suppose the feet if you like), but there isn't an overall term for this that I know. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reason I gave above. Also, a merger with Facial (sex act) isn't wise, IMO.  That article deal entirely with the facial's role in pornography.  Absent the "Role in pornography" section, and the article is yet another definition for a slang term, bringing us full-circle. DeeKenn (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful educational little article about a taboo subject. In the world of HIV we need to know all this stuff. Cum shot is about porn movies & hardly relevant, but facial (sex act) would be a possibility if editors don't want a separate article. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and develop further. Thee are certainly a number of sources for the use meaning and signicance as a sexual practice. Shartung is correct there are more general terms--this one is specific. DGG (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dicdef, no potential to be anything but a dicdef. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge: to Cum shot. It's a common form of human sexuality... If people can't handle it, then they should stay off the internet.  User:Pwscottiv (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That it is a common practice isn't the issue. DeeKenn (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact pearl necklace is the slang phrase used in pornography to refer to instances of ejaculation on the female's upper torso.
 * Keep or merge So far as I an see, this article is not entirely worthless. It should be mentioned somewhere, though I agree perhaps not in its own article. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is a very popular and notable sexual slang term. Plenty of reliable sources available on this topic.
 * The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English by Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor, Page 1455.
 * Pornography and Difference by Berkeley Kaite. (1995) Page 117.
 * Endgame: The Problem of Civilization by Derrick Jensen, Page 203.
 * According to Pornography and Difference,
 * The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English defines pearl necklace as:

semen ejaculated on a woman's throat and breasts, especially after penis-breast contact. Thus pearl necklace is a term used to describe the semen ejaculated on a woman's throat. It has usage in pornography also. Pornography and Difference (page 117) gives detail explanation of the term, why the word "pearl" is used and its usage. This term has equivalent in Sanskrit also. For the Sanskrit eqivalent, see A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary by Arthur Anthony MacDonell, Page 229. Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor by Wendy Chapkis includes pearl necknace within "much safer sexual activities" (page 170). Popular Modernity in America by Michael Thomas Carroll (page 118) mentions the background of the origin of the term.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That it is well-defined and widely-used isn't the issue.  The issue, to me, is can the article be taken further than just a definition?  I have Partridge's book as well.  I worship J.E. Lighter.  I love words.  I love etymology.  I love slang and idioms.  But, I also like my dictionaries and encyclopedias, and I (think) I know when they should separate.  DeeKenn (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; see no reason why it can't be expanded beyond a definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; Why does this have less encyclopedia entry-potential than Mastication?  Baiter (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a good example of an article that needs merging. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. DeeKenn (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (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.