Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spermophagia


 * 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   merge to Semen. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Spermophagia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

In a nutshell, this article is a combination of Original Research and Synthesis. For starters, the very definition of the term cannot be proven--because the term is not accepted. See this, for instance: only two of the hits seem related to the present topic. The first relevant hit is in a publication called Excerpta medica, Volume 3, from which we only get a snippet. The second, Kama bhog: foods of love, is a book in which the term occurs once, and this book is hardly by a well-known publisher in the field of sexuality, biology, or anthropology. The second, from Sex and drugs, is even less reputable. (The author of this article never saw fit to find or included these references.) All other hits are related to the biological term, and refers to plants, gnats, and such; Google Scholar offers nothing. Certainly a noteworthy term, supposedly employed in the various fields claimed in the lead, would have been better-known. The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, doesn't list it either. The article used to be called Seminophagia, a term invented by its author--there are no hits for such a term; it does not exist in any real sense.

The article itself is a mixture of strange references pulled from all over the place. We find (or found, in earlier versions) pseudo-scientific references to the benefit of swallowing sperm for dental health, for musco-skeletal support, etc. There are very few references here that pass muster (I cleaned them up once or twice; the article's main editor reinstated them). One of the articles that this editor keeps reinserting might pass muster: I present to you "Semen acts as an anti-depressant"--I have pointed out many times to the editor that this article discusses the vaginal 'consumption' of semen, not its swallowing (an essentially oral activity). While I don't wish to essentialize the difference between the vagina and the mouth, they seem sufficiently different at least in an accepted biological sense. Without wanting to prejudge your response, I wish to point your attention to the recently introduced "In popular culture" section, which points to Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, a delightful comedy, as exemplifying spermophagia. It does not, of course, but it is typical of the way in which this article attempts to make every reference to swallowing semen count.

To summarize: a non-existing (or barely existing term) term is beefed up by unreliable references that cannot even establish what the article is about. If there is anything to this thing at all, it is to be found in the second paragraph of the "Cultural practices" section--but this is already found in the Semen article, with a better reference than the Getting It webzine. In fact, a lot of the material in the present article has been or is also found in Semen--to some extent one might call Spermophagia a POV fork, of a very particular POV.

I apologize for this lengthy statement; I foresee strong responses and wanted to be as complete as I could here, even without digging up the long discussions on various talk pages and the move from Seminophagia to Spermophagia--this is to be found in the article history and the various talk pages, incl. the deletion by the main editor of a "merge" proposal which, it is granted, wasn't making much headway. I propose delete, not merge, since I propose that whatever is valuable in this article is duplicate information. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  18:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this article has been and continues to be a mass of synthesis to promote a particular POV. If there is anything useful not already in Sperm or Semen, then merge as appropriate and redirect to the latter. -- Lady  of  Shalott  18:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should this discussion be posted on the food and drink project's discussion page? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had hoped to achieve inclusiveness by listing it under "Society." But if you'll post it there, I'll thank you and toast you with a shot of you-know-what. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bourbon? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge get rid of the OR and merge the rest with sperm or semen, whatever. Dincher (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * delete, or merge at the most. You won't find me disagreeing. Sticky Parkin 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why isn't semen ingestion notable? It seems to have been discussed to some extent in anthropological studies, alternative medicine and sexual health psychology type materials. Is the problem that the article keeps getting vandalized? Or it needs clean-up? There do seem to be some sources for this somewhat fringey topic and it seems problematic to merge it with any one of the targets mentioned. The word used in the title does seem to carry some weight. I'm not really sure but I think it seems notable. Am I missing something? (Also the first line of the article should be revised I think, it's too ambiguous and yet not broad enough to cover the content of the article).ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CoM did put the finger right on the wet spot--the first line of the article. As for their second sentence, "It seems to have been discussed to some extent," it's precisely this vagueness that is the problem here. Drmies (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I never, a page on cum eating. Savagely cut out all the original research and merge to Oral sex Fellatio, as it's hardly going to be occurring outside that context. Fences  &amp;  Windows  05:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Fences and windows - Merge to Fellatio  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, as I already commented in the talk page of the article. And the OR and non-significant research needs to be cut out. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the name of this article was changed to "semen ingestion," reverted, and then switched to yet a third title, some of its history was not retained and so not all of its authors have yet been notified of this debate, including its creator (NOT me, as has been assumed). This history should somehow be restored and earlier contributors informed. All the wikilinks still read "seminophagia," its original and proper name. This title should be restored simply because it relates to the semen article and not to the sperm article. Additionally, it is impossible to swallow sperm without also swallowing semen, so in the strictest sense "spermophagia" is a practical impossibility and at the very least is a term of incomplete description. Also, not all of the properties of semen referred to in the article are contained in sperm itself. This article cannot properly be merged into "semen" because a big ruckus was made about it being called "spermophagia" rather than "seminophagia," a linguistically proper term, whether neologism or not. (Google recognizes it, correcting the inaccurate 'semenophagia' spelling.) So if it must be moved anywhere, the "sperm" article is the only place left for "SPERMophagia." This article certainly relates to fellatio, but cannot be merged there either because to do so is to deny the existence of felching and also ignores other ways that semen is sometimes consumed, such as after masturbation.

Just because some may find the subject matter "distasteful" (pun intended!) is certainly not grounds to eliminate an article entirely, as if the subject did not even exist. There is a strong undercurrent by a small group with a vendetta against this topic (and its related subject matter) who are apparently highly averse to performing this act and so are sarcastically disdainful of those who advocate it. There are 3 million other articles to choose from, and surely they could and should find something else to read.

This page is basically just about a very popular sexual fetish, of which scores of other such pages exist. But the medically verifiable content of this article is both astonishing and radically significant, attributing to it far greater validity. Although it has yet more potential for development, I believe we have a comprehensive analysis of the subject, as medical research now stands. When an article typically garners 4000-5500 hits in a single day, that fact alone would surely in most people's minds provide more than ample justification for its existence! That actually places it into the top 1-2% of all articles on Wikipedia! The compelling interest clearly far outweighs the repulsion of a few, even if that were the criteria.

This article is a work in progress. If some of the references are poor then let's upgrade them, not tear down someone else's efforts and arbitrarily delete entire sections. Contribute and improve instead of detract and undermine! A poorly referenced statement does not equal a false statement. While blaming it on synthesis or O.R., what seems to have actually drawn the most ire is the research that is clinically proven, referenced and verifiable.JGabbard (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to notify as many of the contributors as I could find. I'm not going to answer all your points one by one; it's been done before. But a few things are worth noting. The research that is "clinically proven, referenced and verifiable," there is precious little of that, and it is at odds with your earlier claim that this is about fellatio. What is happening, and it's plain to every other editor, is that the importance of a particular sexual fetish is blown (yes) out of proportion; by the inclusion of fictitious and poorly referenced claims to health you have added "medical benefits" as if semen swallowers swallow semen (or sperm, whatever) to maintain a healthy lifestyle, and that therefore this invented term is notable. You have to make up your mind whether this is a sexual fetish or not. If it is, then you might consider a merge to fellatio. If it is not, you might consider a merge to ingestion of semen or something like that. But it seems, from the comments of other editors, that you cannot have your semen and eat it too. Oh, "entire selections" were not arbitrarily deleted: they were very judiciously deleted, with lengthy summaries, because they were based on unreliable sources or because they made no sense. You never responded, I note, to my objection that the vagina is very different from the mouth, yet you keep reinserting the reference to an article that suggests vaginal absorption of semen might be beneficial, but says nothing about oral consumption. Do you not see yourself how ridiculous that is? Or should I, for the purposes of clarity in this AfD, include pictures of these orifices? No, this article, under its various imaginary names, has run its course, and while it was fun, it is time to move on and build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and not on imagination and synthesis. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just added templates to contributors of the original page semen ingestion including the creator User:OOODDD - that should make for a fair discussion.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge per Fences & Windows, unless some reliable sources, menus and techniques (chopsticks, knife and fork etc) emerge. I find the idea that this topic deserves a free-standing article impossible to swallow.  pablo hablo. 19:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect or simply delete. There's precious little worth saving. As an aside to Ronhjones, you might want to be a bit more selective in the future; I was one of the people who received a message from you. My single edit was to remove an unsourced statement, dating to the period the article was at Semen ingestion. I saw a discussion of the statement on another site, and cleaned out that particular bit of unpleasantness. This is not an article I would have found otherwise, and I'm fine with that. &lt;/me heads to the shower, feeling soiled&gt;  Horologium  (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge anything not covered in Semen or Felatio, or delete if nothing worth merging (most of the good info is already at Semen). Once the synthesis is removed from this article, it is only small section at most, so no need to spin out an article for such a little used term, a section redirect will do the job. Yob  Mod  14:52, 15 October 2009 (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.