Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex noise


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sex noise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't seem serious to me, tone is jokey. Could be merged into Sexual intercourse. crh23 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Per nom. Jokey. Non-encyclopedic tone. Unclear notability. Creator has produced a number of somewhat awkward articles of this nature. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Not only is this article not encyclopedic, it is border-line vulgar. Get rid of it!    Ormr2014 | Talk
 * Delete. I'm all for quirky and unusual articles but this is simply an unencyclopedic and unsalvageable mess. It lumps together under "sex noises" anything from moans, to breathing & grunts associated with physical exercise, to sounds of a surface making contact with another and, the creaking of un-oiled mattress springs. It's full of conjectural original research, with unsupported statements like "some jurisdictions have laws against people being too loud during intercourse". Frequently using loud power tools at 3 in the morning would probably lead to you being told to stop; that wouldn't mean the country has a "power tools law". Any number of actions that involve physical exertion or movement of persons or objects will create many of the sounds the article refers to. It doesn't mean we should awkwardly group them together to try and make articles (e.g. "home improvement noises" or "tennis playing noises" pages that talk of power tools, grunts of exertion, thwacks of a racquet etc). –146.199.151.33 (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The article is not jokey at all. This is a topic of frequent discussion in various formats, including relationship magazines, forums on topics related to discreetness, as well as cultural message boards. Since it is a notable topic it deserves inclusion. A look at google merely confimrs my point that this topic is notable. For example sex noise gets 667 returns on g books while sex moans gets 256 returns. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles which primarily deal with the aesthetics of sex. So I found it strange that this encyclopedia focuses only on the visual perception of sex. The article may seem dodgy, only because it is incomplete. It is still being worked but editors don't have all the free time in the world. Another reason this article is important is due to a common trait among men that a woman who makes sounds during sex is more attractive and alluring than women who are silent. Therefore sex sounds form an additional possible role in sexual performance. Thus I would class it as on the same category as pheromones, and physical attractiveness, bith if which by the way have separate articles. All are traits that heighten sexual excitement. Also remember that the above arguments are listed under arguments to avoid in the WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC section. I acknowledge it is currently lacking, but please give it time to improve. Plus considering that unintelligible sounds during human sex has often been linked to being a tool for discerning level of gratification. As for the notion that it is original research, almost every other sentence has a reference backing the points up. This subject content is important, but I also suggest the possibility of making a page move, such as maybe to sex moans if there is no other compromise. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with Female copulatory vocalizations. I'm not sure which is my first choice between keep and merge. Therefore I will simply vote in both directions. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The arguments above would only fall under WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC if they stopped at "unencyclopedic" as the reason for deleting. Because they actually explain what makes your article "unencyclopedic", the argument is not a circular argument.


 * Note - For the record, Freidnless lnoner is the author of this article.  Ormr2014 | Talk


 * Keep Although a rewrite and some focusing might be needed, tone isn't reason for deletion. There is coverage in legitimate sources - I'd add --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed we have another article on this Female copulatory vocalizations, so a merge or redirect may be better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to the already-existing article Female copulatory vocalizations (and then consider retitling that one to copulatory vocalization). --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that Female copulatory vocalizations has now also been nominated for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Female copulatory vocalizations. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That AFD has been withdrawn now crh23 (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Has a number of credible sources. Article has been improved. Tone not a valid reason for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete My vote was to keep but on closer examination I have switched to delete. The sources really are not substantial enough to support this article. Moreover the article isn't worth supporting in its current state. It reads like a joke and is intentionally difficult. I do feel the topic of this article is worthy however and should it be deleted/redirected I will be recreating it with content of more substance. It fails wp:note and wp:v in its current form and probably isn't salvageable as is. I have copied the content from mainspace to work on it. Thank you Trout 71 17:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is WP:OR which cobbles together a narrative from random sources that only mention the specific subjects they are cited for in passing. For example the first reference, A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature, p. 626, discusses usage of the term groan in Early Modern English and briefly mentions a sexual connotation among other things. The seventh source, Talk to Me First: Everything You Need to Know to Become Your Kids' "Go-To" Person about Sex, has a list of vulgar items one is supposed to repeat five times to build the confidence to say them with a serious face to one's children, and one of them is "queef," which apparently is why this passage is cited. The fact that the titles of these books were not named in full gives me the impression that the article was an intentional joke. --Sammy1339 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2015 (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.