Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Versatile (sex)


 * 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   Keep This was a really hard decision to make, seeing as the votes were mainly split between "Keep" and "Merge/Redirect". I decided to close this AFD as "close", partially becuase I believe that this encylopedia is based off the fact that we should improve an article, rather than do away with it. As a result, I suggest cleaning up this article, especially its prose and NPOV. Otherwise, if the article remains in its current state, someone will simply have to merge it to Top_and_bottom. Cheers,  I 'mperator 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Versatile (sex)

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

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * World record - You didin't even read the text, nor look at the sources - couldn't because the text was posted at 23:04 GMT and you asked for deletion at 23:05 GMT. One minute .... gosh, you are fast! --Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I read very quickly. Try to WP:AGF. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of WP:GAME, you could once try WP:PDNBTN ... --Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - versatile is a most notable term. I believe the references in this article can be improved, but they confirm notability. Crafty (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm always happy to see AfD result in a better article, so if you feel they can be improved, please do so. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  --Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Incredibly, incredibly common term. Zazaban (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Common or not, it is a dictionary definition.  JBsupreme (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- despite the gun-jumping deletion nomination, appears to be a reasonable article, with established notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shameful, if not an outright bad faith nomination. "Neologism"?! If the quick-reading nom had spent more than one minute checking his facts, he would have realized this "non-notable neologism" is one of the older terms in the field, and has been in wide use for decades. Owen&times; &#9742;  02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of bad-faith. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never did; read my comment again carefully--perhaps with more attention rather than speed. I did, however, accuse you of sloppiness and shoddy editorial workmanship. You may be a quick reader, but it seems you're not a very thorough one. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This seems directly related to Flip flop (sex) AfD. -- Banj e  b oi   03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Top_and_bottom which also should cover versatile and other related terms there is no need to belabour every term that could be used. This is not censorship but housing relative information in the same place - if it grows out of that article then maybe. But this is, IMHO, a poorly constructed and sourced chunk to advocate for more inclusion that distances itself from BDSM. Guess what? It's not helpful. The Top and bottom article already clearly states these terms are about sex and BDSM people simply use them, I simply see no reason to have redundancy on this. -- Banj e  b oi   03:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

unsourced--Meister und Margarita (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I stand by my merge comment above but would like to note I think the subject is notable just not needing an independent article. Also the sourcing on the current version is dreadful. -- Banj e  b oi   03:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. If kept, this desperately needs a rewrite.  It presently reads like a personal essay. Resolute 03:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Top_and_bottom. I would like to point out that none of the article's sources met WP:SOURCES. Some guy (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfair. First you delete all sources and then you add this button:
 * Simply not true. There were a lot of reliable sources before you deleted them all. Here some examples:   .--Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Of those three sources only the first might be reliable and unfortunately it doesn't matter if it is because the word "versatile" doesn't seem to be anywhere on it. -- Banj e  b oi   12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply not true (2). It's 4, not 3. I even quoted the following sentence from Human sexuality. An Encyclopedia: "In large cities in the United States, gay men are for the most part expected to be versatile, not only in top versus bottom roles (if any) but also in the choice of particular acts (e.g., oral, anal, masturbatory)." This proves that the term had been in use and commly spread so that it has been included in an encyclopedia already in 1994. (Human sexuality. An Encyclopedia, edited by Vern L. Bullough, Bonnie Bullough, New York, London 1994, 280)--Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't see the fourth, that one's OK although it seems like a self-published research paper; I'll give you 0.5 out of a possible 4.0 which isn't terribly helpful. Again, I think the term is notable but I see no reason it can't grow in the main article first. There is, after all, no versatile unless placed in the top-bottom continuum. Ergo I think it helps our readers more to keep it in that context as the very first question must be - "versatile about what, when, where, why and how" all of which are in the other article. -- Banj e  b oi   12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Top_and_bottom. I'd say "merge", but there's no sourced or NPOV information in the article.  --Alynna (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is indeed a shameful jump-gun nomination, that gives absolutely no leeway to the article author to improve whatever shortcomings a first-draft article might have. Did any of those concerned with poor sourcing care to look for sources?  They come up pretty easily. Say, for instance
 * Gay men and anal eroticism: tops, bottoms, and versatiles‎ - Page 12 - by Steven Gregory Underwood - Social Science - 2003 - 225 pages
 * The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships‎ - Page 356 - by John H. Harvey, Amy Wenzel, Susan Sprecher - Psychology - 2005 - 104 pages
 * Gay relationships‎ - Page 86 - by John P. De Cecco - Social Science - 1987 - 290 pages
 * Gay macho: the life and death of the homosexual clone‎ - Page 88 - by Martin P. Levine, Michael S. Kimmel - Social Science - 1998 - 260 pages
 * Soulfully gay: how Harvard, sex, drugs, and integral philosophy drove me ...‎ by Joe Perez - Biography & Autobiography - 2007 - 328 pages
 * The list continues ad libitum. I have no opinion on a stand-alone article or a merge. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly, this was started when Flip flop (sex) AfD started to go down. -- Banj e  b oi   12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, would have been useful if it had been mentioned in the deletion rationale. Still, there seem to be plenty of RS, indicative that this has expansion potential beyond a mere dicdef.  It is certainly not a "non-notable neologism". I see no convincing deletion rationale. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Both creator and nom seemed to jump the shark a bit here likely as newbish to the whole organic-growth model. I too see no reason to delete per se as merge/redirect as I see with the flip=flop article as well; these terms should be treated within the parent article until it serves our readers to break it out. -- Banj e  b oi   13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Somehow it looks like the BDSM-Community is much more efficient in creating new articles. They have it all:
 * Sadomasochism
 * Top (BDSM)
 * Bottom (BDSM)
 * Switch (BDSM)
 * Female dominance
 * Female submission
 * Patriarchy
 * Male dominance (BDSM)
 * Male submission
 * Domination & submission (BDSM)
 * Top and bottom in sex and BDSM
 * Play party (BDSM)
 * fetish club
 * fetish fashion
 * bondage (BDSM)
 * BDSM


 * In my eyes it's okay that also a minority gets the space - but please let's not neglect the mainstream. Versatile (sex) is the equivalent to Switch (BDSM). The only difference is that versatile behavior in all male sex is much more common then switching in BDSM. - By the way, Benjiboi: Human sexuality. An Encyclopedia, edited by Vern L. Bullough, Bonnie Bullough, New York, London 1994 is listed by The Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology at the Humboldt University Berlin, i.e. fullfills all requirements for an undisputable and reliable source. This book was already quoted in the first draft of this article.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Readership is likely to look for this term. Also, we are here to document human experience and knowledge. This article needs no deletion, it needs improvement. -- RUL3R *flaming 17:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As before, redirect to Top and bottom, where this sort of thing is already covered. Hairhorn (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:N; fails WP:BITE. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Term is very commonly used and notable.  69.253.207.9 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete if nothing to merge. The article title is an adjective, which are not generally suitable subjects for an encyclopedia, per WP:NAD.  Therefore, if Kept, the article should be Moved to Versatility (sex), the proper noun form.  However, this topic seems as if it could be sufficiently covered by the existing article Top and bottom; the two topics are sufficiently intertwined that they should be covered together unless the article gets to be too long and requires a split.  Powers 13:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In this context, 'Versatile' is actually used as a noun. Nobody ever uses the term 'versatility'. Zazaban (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article as written uses it as an adjective, and it uses the term "versatility" when it needs a noun. Regardless, my main points remain; the exact form of the article title can be debated later, if the article is kept.  Powers T 12:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've removed an new set of sources that were also unreliable, original research and that start of the list of versatile performers which according to the article would encompass at least %80 of all male porn performers. I can't speak to the reliability of the non-online sources. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable sociological and anthropological topic.
 * Non-notable is not shown.
 * Neologism is not shown. I offer a refutation of it anyway. WP:DELETION gives a handy definition of Neologism: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms". The usage of the term is shown with RS, ergo it is not a neologism.
 * The relevance of "dictionary definition" and WP:NAD is not shown, and in the first instance, not even elucidated; I cannot see even see how this might relate to any article of more than one paragraph, which describes an activity, and the use of the word that describes it. I have taken note from the discussion above that the changing the title to Versatility (sex), as the title is already a noun, does not address the concern about it being a dictionary definition. Ironically, it would seem that elucidation of the use of the word as a noun, as is not currently evident in the article, is called for. Anarchangel (talk) 06:38, 7 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.