Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual Sex Acts


 * 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 of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 07:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unusual Sex Acts
Nonencyclopedic, addmittedly unverifiable. Nominated for prod then removed. Thatcher131 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This article is the wikipedia equivilant to smearing poo on the walls. The tone and expalanotory thesis are very unencyclopedianc and downright atrocious.-ZeroTalk 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Collection of slang terms for various sex acts. The title and choice is inherently POV (what makes a certain sex act "unusual"?). Plus, I am pretty sure this was deleted before, because it is contained in BJAODN: Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sexual Slang. Therefore delete. Kusma (討論) 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Unusual place names couldn't get a consensus to delete, and this isn't all that different. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not sourced. - ikkyu2 ( talk ) 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that can be fixed. My vote stands. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your analogy doesn't, though. :) - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 04:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless referenced to show some of these things are (1) actually discussed by notable people, and (2) considered "unusual". Otherwise inherently POV. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This Article might be ok if it was Cleaned Up, and had the Slang Cut out.--Z.Spy 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable and pointless. Fan1967 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources, low encyclopedical value except as honeypot for high school vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Speedy delete CSD G4 if proven to be a recreation. Schizombie 02:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the editor already has given the reason in his own (poor) defense against speedy deletion-- this isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, and there's nothing that ties these "defintions" (as poorly worded as they are) together into anything that approaches being an "article" about unusual sex acts, their history, their development in world or western culture, or how these terms came to be, or where they came from (i.e., there are no citations). It's a matter of being offended by the poor quality of the material and its presentation, not the subject matter. Blondlieut 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Blondlieut
 * Merge verifiable content into the appropriate sections of Sexual Slang (where other sex acts lists have gone). Some of these terms are already there. However, I do not oppose plain deletion here. PJM 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Reasons already stated. This article has no redeemable value and whoever actually took the time to write it should be in therapy.Misunderestimated 03:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Came from nowhere, no real edits, possible sock puppet?? Oarias 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Blondlieut and CanadianCaesar Tom Harrison Talk 04:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's conceivable that this could be turned into a decent (perhaps that's not the right word!) encyclopedia article, but right now it's garbage, and it's not the sort of thing that should be given the benefit of the doubt.   dbtfz talk 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencylopedic. Phoenix2 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable, indiscriminate. Listcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Largely unencylopedic; perhaps a few verifiable entries could be merged into Sexual slang per PJM.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. No sources, fails WP:V, no way to prove it's not original research.  - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. So, why is the asian fetish article allowed to stay but this is going to get deleted? Apparently Asian fetishism is "encyclopedic" since it documents a real Western phenomenon, yet unusual sex acts are not real Western phenomenon.  That article also has neither sources nor scientific evidence.  Double standard, anyone? 70.106.143.128
 * If you think asian fetish should be deleted then you are as entitled to anyone to list it for deletion --PopUpPirate 09:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Adrian Lamo. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference between this article and a list of unusal place names is that the names can be verified by looking at a map. How is one to tell from this article which terms have independent existence in the culture (if any) and which were made up in high school (if any).Thatcher131 14:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete this rambling list of musings on sexual torture and assault. This is one of the most worthless and offensive articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I suspect that anyone voting to keep it is either casting his vote as an ironic statement or is completely oblivious to what good content is. Harry Bagatestes 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC) xd (?!? - help us) 04:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nce Ong 10:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This most important article alive! There are many LIST categories on Wikipedia, why not this one? Oarias 12:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, likely unverifiable. MLA 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NPOV violation - by what criteria is a sexual act deemed unusual? Reading through the list, it is impossible to distinguish between those in which people do participate and those that are merely dreamed up and written about as sexual folklore.  WP:NFT refers. In addition, no citations or references make this list useless for research in to cultural practises.   (aeropagitica)   18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and condemn author(s) to the sixth circle of Wiki-Hell. &#8212;Charles P._ (Mirv) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, for pretty much every reason that makes up "unencyclopedic": listcruft, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, original research, unverifiablility... MCB 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per PJM. Who's to say what's unusual, I don't know, but there are may lists like this on Wikipedia. How is this one any different? ( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 02:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fork or something. Golfcam 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. --Fire Star 04:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quick before my girlfriend reads it - I've been telling her that this stuff is not unusual. Seriously.... Feeding The Elephant? Alabama Pillow? Donkey Punch Balcony Throw? Trolling. Herostratus 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverifiable weirdness-cruft. --InShaneee 04:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Angry Pirate: When one is about to ejaculate during a blowjob, shoots semen in one of the female's eyes, kicking one of her legs, and running away. The result is an angry girl who cannot see out of one eye (the eyepatch) and has trouble walking on one of her legs (the pegleg)." Please - Wikipedia is not for things you make up whilst drunk. Strong delete. Tito
 * Or whilst mentally 12 years old. PJM 14:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Tito. Jude (talk,contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Titoxd. Wikipedia is only for things I make up while drunk! -- SCZenz 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sheesh you people are such prudes! Anyhow.... Oarias 07:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete mostly made up during a slow day at school--Porturology 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The title of the article is arbitrary, since "unusual" is not defined. A small (I believe) portion of the material describes genuine practices, urban legends, or slang, but none of the material is referenced.  A substantial (I believe) portion of the material was obviously made up as a lark by illiterate buffoons.  In summary, the small amount of material covering genuine practices, urban legends, slang terms, etc. belongs elsewhere, properly referenced.  However, the generally poor quality of the entire page would make a merge impractical. --D.L. Hughes 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Guess this article is going down in flames... Oh well...  I'll make major changes to it off-line (fix grammar/spelling/remove slang/etc) and resubmit with a different/more appropriate title.  Any suggestions? Oarias 18:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cite your sources, and review Verifiability, Manual of style, and Neutral point of view.  You might note in particular that Unusual place names now only has place names referred to as "unusual" in other sources, since Wikipedia is not a primary source or a place for original research. -- SCZenz 19:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very sound advice above. I really think, however, it'd be better if you added such items to Sexual Slang than trying the make a new article. PJM 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Most of this is clearly fictional, not to mention stupid. Mwongozi 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to severe lack of verifiability. -- Mithent 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I must apologise for listing it for Speedy deletion, which was harsh, but nonetheless, it should go. I'm no prude, but if you want muck, read Viz or Razzle ffs! --PopUpPirate 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

alexblainlater 14:17, 5 March 2006 (EST) User's first edit. Kusma (討論) 17:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep There is no need to delete this, if it offends you then don't look at it. It's a bunch of urban deffinitons that have been mentioned on shows such as Howard Stern, Saturday Night Live, and many other movies/shows. I strongly am against deleting this because someone is too simple minded just to turn away from it.


 * Keep it for sure. If you don't like this stuff...Just don't look at it.  Its very funny to some people and it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.126.203 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep Clearly the list needs to be cut down to remove uncited or possibly original material, but there is no reason why it should not continue to exist as a list of known outlandish sex acts described in popular culture; at a minimum, of those that already have their own wikipedia articles. Sammy1339 04:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * User has only 40 edits. -ZeroTalk 04:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per nom. 71.244.86.178 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, as per nomination. --Puzzlet Chung 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary list of obscenitites, most of them bound to be completely bogus and non-notable unless we waste precious manhours patrolling it. / Peter Isotalo 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Apart from its slang and uncited content, this article contains in the definiton of "Combat Jack" the words "The poor bastards in Iraq", referrng to the tortured and sexually harassed Iraqi prisoners.
 * Delete with maximum prejudice. This is a compendium of all the ludicrous made-up "sex acts" which have ever been deleted or BJAODNed from Wikipedia, with some more made up just to pad it out.  This is like Beavis and Butthead without the subtlety, humour, charm or dialogue. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but delete the made up ones --Sweetie Petie 00:09, 8 March 2006 (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.