Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tease and denial


 * 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 REDIRECT to Erotic sexual denial. Arguments over whether or not this term is widely used are irrelevant. The relevant issue is whether or not this subject is differenct from erotic sexual denial. No case has been made for that and hence the WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument has the day.  Spinning Spark  23:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tease and denial

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not established. Content is duplicative of erotic sexual denial. Sourcing is also problematic. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify which article it duplicates? The page for erotic denial doesn't seem to exist. Do you mean Erotic sexual denial where the nominated page is split from? Funny  Pika! 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The term is widely used in femdom and fetish pornographic websites. A search for the term on Amazon shows some results. Reliable sources for the topic are hard to find because of search engines' bias towards pornography instead of encyclopedic content and social stigma on pornography that prevents that more serious studies about the topic become known. Some references might be added in the future, but it has WP:POTENTIAL. And the current state is actually not bad, just lacks references. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is wikipeda-en, not wikipeida-en-porn. If a term is widely used, one would expect there to be many references.  Whether or not search engines have a porn bias (a concept i reject as the Internet 's backbone was built on porn) is irrelevant. There are many many "porn" terms that do have articles.   At the moment there is no potential, nor is any likely to develop.  The ESD article will do fine.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 10:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You have misinterpreted me. The internet is biased toward pornographic content itself (for masturbation). Searching for "porn" is more likely to yield more results like that than encyclopedic content, news articles or studies about pornography as a phenomenon. It is hard to find reliable sources for topics like autofellatio for that reason. But somehow they managed to do it. I'm sure there are some reliable sources for Tease and denial too, since it is a widely used term. It would be better just to wait until someone digs them up. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is a widely used term, there should be evidence of its use. This isn't urban dictionary is my point.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting it is an urban dictionary at all. I really think that the article is useful and encyclopedic, but seriously lacking reliable sources. But that issue can be fixed. I'm sure those sources exist and an expert in human sexuality would be able to find them. I can say that by comparing it with similar, but successful articles. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Most modern sex advice books are likely to discuss it. They do have to be found, though - . A quick G-scholar search (without even trying for synonymous phrases)  finds: Gentry, Cynthia W. What Women Really Want in Bed: The Surprising Secrets Women Wish Men Knew About Sex.'. Beverly, MA: Quiver, 2010  isbn 9781592333394 ' p. 17 ; Gregg Norris Glossary of BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Dominance, Submission, Sadism, Masochism); Eva Christina, The Book of Kink: Sex Beyond the Missionary New York, NY : Perigee Book, ©2011, isbn 9780399536946 ; D. Mainon,  "A New Kind of Girl" p.277-91 in Silver, Alain, and James Ursini. Gangster Film Reader. Pompton Plains, N.J.: Limelight editions, 2007. among the less standard literature is FetishDiva Midori, Linda Santiman, and Steve Diet Goedde. Wild Side Sex: The Book of Kink : Educational, Sensual, and Entertaining Essays.'' Los Angeles, CA: Daedalus, 2005. There are also works of fiction (see Google Books)  DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, clear evidence of significant coverage among multiple different secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete ESD covers the subject, and the references provided by DGG can be applied to improve that article. Also, a redirect or improvement to Tease will get readers to the right place. What this article (along with other similar articles) might become is a WP:NOTHOWTO, and a single article such as ESD allows editors to follow one page, not multiple. Finally, we have WP:OSE considerations. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, these articles do not cover the subject, the article for deletion is not a how to, and my arguments were not WP:OSE. Please read carefully my comments above. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Erotic sexual denial. The two topics are insufficiently different to merit separate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Erotic sexual denial. DGG has found sources about the topic, however they are not cited in the article, which is unsourced and so we don't know whether the content matches the sources. Consequently, the content should be suppressed until it is made verifiable to readers by inline citations. As this is contested content by virtue of this AfD, it must be sourced or removed per WP:V. Also, the two articles are about the same topic as far as I can tell. We need only one. Ideally, one is redirected to another, which is then reduced to a sourced stub to remove all the unsourced content, and it can grow back from there to the extent editors cite sources for any additions.  Sandstein   09:16, 2 March 2013 (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.