Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pervertible


 * 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   delete.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Pervertible

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Badly sourced neologism. Term already has a short entry in Wiktionary which could be expanded to include this particular meaning. The first sentence is very closely paraphrased from the definition on the Informed Consent website listed as the second of two references. Reference #1 is dead. DracoE 03:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To Wiktionary Dictionary definition. It might be possible to write an article about people using everyday objects as sex toys, with references to everyone who's written about masturbating with a shower faucet and statistics about cucumber sales, but this article isn't anywhere near encyclopedic, and you would need a better title. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - as an unsourced, non-notable neologism. Glad to see they got the controversial toothbrush graphic that the porn hobbyists at Commons are so infatuated with into play in an "educational" context... I suspect that the only reason for this article's existence is to get that should-have-been-deleted graphic into play, but don't listen to me, I'm a cynic... Urban dictionary is thattaway ---> Carrite (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - It has long been said that if you cannot think of at least 6 ways to use an object other than for its intended purpose then you don't fully understand it. As anything can be used for some perverted purpose the word has no real meaning. John lilburne (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Haven't found any evidence that it is gaining currency. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this doesn't appear to pass the general notability guideline, doesn't seem like a topic in need of an encyclopedic entry, and is certainly currently written in a way that is far outside the expectations of what a Wikipedia article should be. See WP:NEOLOGISM -Pete (talk) 23:53, 31 May 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.