Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trainfuck


 * 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.  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  00:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Trainfuck

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism already covered at List of sex positions and Group sex. Stand-alone article is unnecessary duplication, and I'd further argue that the title is not the most common name for the act. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a wonderful blog piece and inspiring in its novel synthesis but we are lacking actual encyclopedic content that supports a stand alone article. Absent a stubbifying process that removes all the original research and replaces it with reliable sourcing to demonstrate the need for a stand alone article I think this has to be deleted. A protected redirect to group sex may encourage the creator to build a reliably sourced and non-original research version in their userspace instead. -- Banj e  b oi   07:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This type of activity is already covered in group sex in the "daisy chain" section, which is a much more common name for this. Not enough to write to merit a separate article on the subject, and if there were, it should not be under a neologistic title. Every few years teenagers think they have invented some clever sex act, without understanding that they already exist under established names; these don't all need separate articles. Protected redirect would be fine too, if anyone finds a reliable source showing the term has any popularity. Yob  Mod  07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect as the case may be... neologism. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to group sex, where the act is mentioned and clarified. Well-written article, but weak topic. McMarcoP (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic is covered elsewhere, and is not sufficiently Notable to warrant its own article, anyway.  Plus, I have never heard this term before in my life (and suffice it to say I have not lived a sheltered one).  I've heard of "pulling a train" on probably hundreds of occasions, but "trainfuck?"  I don't think people really say that. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with no redirect. Beat me to the AfD. I can't find a single reliable source that even uses "trainfuck"; the only hit for "train fuck" in this context seems to be Gay-2-zee: a dictionary of sex, subtext, and the sublime. DF Reuter - 2006 - St. Martin's Griffin. The author of the article was using far too much original research and synthesis. It might be a slang phrase using in porn or the gay scene, but it's not a notable one. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You should have seen the article before I cut it down by about half. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did. The less said about that the better. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: the article's creator has effectively supported deletion by redirecting the article to List of sex positions (the redirect was undone while this AFD is open, however). Exploding Boy (talk) 06:09, 11 August 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.