Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pity sex


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Pity sex
Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --PhilipO 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the kind of trivial fluff that gives Wikipedia a bad name IMHO. But if the community wants it in....--PhilipO 00:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally don't understand why. I created the article because I felt that it was culturally significant enough to merit mention.  I apologize if it's considered trivial.  King Zeal 00:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise! If the community votes to keep it, that's fine with me. Cheers --PhilipO 02:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Pity sex is not slang. It's a cultural standard.  Much like the term "making out". King Zeal 19:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Vote by article creator
 * Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, and this article is not a slang dictionary article, either. A slang dictionary would tell us the etymology, history, usage, meaning, pronunciation, synonyms, and translations of a phrase.  This article, however, tells us about pity sex, including people's motivations for having it and its potential repercussions.  Uncle G 19:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. Kappa 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article, while not fabulous, is clearly about the phenomenon rather than the word. The phenomenon is, I suppose, real and notable enough - though the popular psychology stuff grates on me. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems like overkill to me, like explaining the roundness of a basketball. I would like to mention I think there should be limits to what concepts deserve articles. That line is probably only going to lie in human judgement and with no hard rules. Is pity sex something people will try to look up? The term seems self-explanitory. Still, seems to be just over the line of having some quality. I would definitely like to see more refs added. --DanielCD 21:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why, if you consider this to be overkill, there is a necessity to have articles on casual sex, friend zone or, as I mentioned before, making out. They're just as "self-explanatory", if not moreso.
 * Personally, I think the strength of Wikipedia is to assume there isn't a such thing as "common" sense.
 * And I'm working on references. They're not very easy to Google.  King Zeal 22:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I did say Keep, did I not? --DanielCD 04:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary (in much shorter version). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (although the more popular nomenclature is probably "Mercy fuck" which should redirect there, and be mentioned as such. BD2412  T 15:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to Witionary. No need for an article. Sethie 07:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the absence of references this seems unencyclopedic to me; it's a common enough phenomenon perhaps, but neither the concept nor the phrase are specific enough to merit inclusion. - squibix 03:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is complete original research and the author's unsourced opinion, and is not at all encyclopedic. It is full of POV and is basically what one person happens to think about the subject. I am not at all convinced that this can be made an encyclopedic topic beyond a dicdef. MCB 22:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I kept as much of my opinion as I could out of it. As I said before, online references on this subject are extremely hard to find.  King Zeal 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)King Zeal


 * 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.