Ass to Mouth found to be "Completely Inappropriate"....Wait... Nevermind.
Ass to Mouth was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.
* Delete Oral-Anal sex covers the topic 142.154.35.248 01:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Title is too vulgar, and the majority of the edits have been made by only one person. Too limited a subject, is this page really nessesary? [maestro] 06:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Not making a vote as I haven't researched this, but the title being vulgar is not grounds for deletion. Shane King 07:13, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
* Many wikipedia articles deal with limited subjects. This is certainly true of articles dealing with human sexuality (see Anilingus). Furthermore, a fair number of articles have been written by but one person. Furthermore, this article is not prurient -- it addresses possible causes for A2M's rise in popularity as of late in American pornography. I vote for retention. It has been proposed that both Anilingus and Ass to Mouth be grouped under a new article to be entitled Oral-Anal Sex. I would prefer that Ass to Mouth be given a less vulgar name, but there seems to be no technical term for this sex act in existence. At Wikipedia, we should document our subjects, not create new terms for them. Of course, if a reduction in the title's vulgarity were deemed absolutely necessary, it could be called "Anal to Oral", following the age-old convention that English words with Latin or Romance sources are considered more refined than their Germanic equivalants.
Good point about the word refinement. What were we talking about again?
* Keep in some form, but probably by redirecting to an article which covers the topic, such as one on pornographic film clichés: this act appears, so far, to be a creation of the pornographic film industry -- Karada 11:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Delete. I don't have any problem with the title but there is nothing to say about the practice that you couldn't figure out for yourself from its name. The inclusion of health information is entirely spurious. It's mildly curious that it has become prominent in porn but is that enough to merit an article? I await the vote on anal double stuffing with bated breath.Dr Zen 12:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Comment: Pardon me, I've got to save my ass. - Shrek. No encyclopedic info IMO, but that applies to most of our sex how-to articles too. Let's face it, sex is fascinating. No vote. Andrewa 12:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Delete: At very best, this is duplicate material. A redirect to annilingus is fine, but redirects are the best way to handle the tee-hee topic names. Geogre 14:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
o Not that it much matters, but it's a different thing from anilingus entirely and a redirect would be completely inappropriate.Dr Zen 14:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ass_to_Mouth
* Delete Oral-Anal sex covers the topic 142.154.35.248 01:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Title is too vulgar, and the majority of the edits have been made by only one person. Too limited a subject, is this page really nessesary? [maestro] 06:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Not making a vote as I haven't researched this, but the title being vulgar is not grounds for deletion. Shane King 07:13, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
* Many wikipedia articles deal with limited subjects. This is certainly true of articles dealing with human sexuality (see Anilingus). Furthermore, a fair number of articles have been written by but one person. Furthermore, this article is not prurient -- it addresses possible causes for A2M's rise in popularity as of late in American pornography. I vote for retention. It has been proposed that both Anilingus and Ass to Mouth be grouped under a new article to be entitled Oral-Anal Sex. I would prefer that Ass to Mouth be given a less vulgar name, but there seems to be no technical term for this sex act in existence. At Wikipedia, we should document our subjects, not create new terms for them. Of course, if a reduction in the title's vulgarity were deemed absolutely necessary, it could be called "Anal to Oral", following the age-old convention that English words with Latin or Romance sources are considered more refined than their Germanic equivalants.
Good point about the word refinement. What were we talking about again?
* Keep in some form, but probably by redirecting to an article which covers the topic, such as one on pornographic film clichés: this act appears, so far, to be a creation of the pornographic film industry -- Karada 11:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Delete. I don't have any problem with the title but there is nothing to say about the practice that you couldn't figure out for yourself from its name. The inclusion of health information is entirely spurious. It's mildly curious that it has become prominent in porn but is that enough to merit an article? I await the vote on anal double stuffing with bated breath.Dr Zen 12:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Comment: Pardon me, I've got to save my ass. - Shrek. No encyclopedic info IMO, but that applies to most of our sex how-to articles too. Let's face it, sex is fascinating. No vote. Andrewa 12:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Delete: At very best, this is duplicate material. A redirect to annilingus is fine, but redirects are the best way to handle the tee-hee topic names. Geogre 14:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
o Not that it much matters, but it's a different thing from anilingus entirely and a redirect would be completely inappropriate.Dr Zen 14:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ass_to_Mouth
posted by Tristan Tzara at 10:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home