Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexurity


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sexurity

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:NEO TheDude2006 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Its totaly unsourced seems to only exist on urban dictionary (and I find it very difficult to belive that in the 19thC any one would create a hybrid this word . May well be a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a word. ...  disco spinster   talk  22:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. (GregJackP (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Delete per WP:NEO, WP:DICDEF, probably a hoax. (Apparently it's a common and amusing Freudian typo—instead of "security"—as seen here and here.) TheFeds 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I figured that this would be about the concept of one partner providing sex in return for a secure relationship, and the other providing the offering security in return for the sex, a symbiosis that typifies a lot of steady relationships (which are strong until one side isn't able to carry out their side of the bargain). I'm not sure whether this is a chauvinistic insult about women, or about someone's fetish for women, who do secuirty work.  However, this looks like a pure hoax-- were there that many "female security personnel" in the 19th century?  Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (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.