Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual Sex Acts

Unusual Sex Acts

Nonencyclopedic, addmittedly unverifiable. Nominated for prod then removed. Thatcher131 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.-Zero^Talk 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sexual Slang. Therefore delete. Kusma (討論) 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unusual place names couldn't get a consensus to delete, and this isn't all that different. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not sourced. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable and pointless. Fan1967 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, low encyclopedical value except as honeypot for high school vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Speedy delete CSD G4 if proven to be a recreation. Schizombie 02:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per Blondlieut and CanadianCaesar Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete, unencylopedic. Phoenix2 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable, indiscriminate. Wikipedia:Listcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely unencylopedic; perhaps a few verifiable entries could be merged into Sexual slang per PJM. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No sources, fails WP:V, no way to prove it's not original research. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This most important article alive! There are many LIST categories on Wikipedia, why not this one? Oarias 12:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, likely unverifiable. MLA 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete and condemn author(s) to the sixth circle of Wiki-Hell. —Charles P._(Mirv) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]