Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowballing (sexual practice) (2nd nomination)

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. Withdrawing nomination as new references added now satisfy WP:NOTE. MrNerdHair (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowballing (sexual practice)

The current popular culture references section does not satisfy notability guidelines. I'm rather pessimistic about the chances of finding reliable sources discussing this in depth, so I'm placing it on AfD. If you can find independent, reliable sources for this, good for you, you've saved an article. But otherwise, we need to get rid of this, as I'm guessing that it's a neologism too.

I'm not against covering sexual topics, even ones that people find offensive, on Wikipedia, but if we can't even follow our own guidelines in doing so, we're no better than the Urban Dictionary. MrNerdHair (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whoops, it appears there's been an AfD discussion on this article already. I should have checked for that before starting another one, sorry. However, while the previous discussion settles the issue of the term being a neologism (it's not), it doesn't discuss adherence to notability guidelines. I'm still claiming that none of the existing popular culture references satisfy WP:NOTE as they don't "address the subject directly in detail." Perhaps this should be moved to Wiktionary? MrNerdHair (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AFD has a comment that says: "Enough notability thanks to the movie, plus external links and enough of a definition." Where did the external links disappear to? I can't find them with WikiBlame, but I might be doing it wrong...- Mgm|^(talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick scan of the page history, and the only possibly useful link I noticed was this Savage Love column. --Fullobeans (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep- let's give some time for improvement.JJJ999 (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The "weakness" comes from it being somewhat a dictionary definition. Sadly, this element of pornography has been discussed in reliable and independent sources, satisfying notability: Village Voice. OC Weekly, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English , The Slangman Guide to Dirty English, Hood: An Urban Erotic Tale(2007, p 10). Edison (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen and heard this topic discussed on sexual health programs. I'm not sure how to include those, if that's the problem. Also, I'm not exactly sure what level of discussion you wish to see in the pop-cultural section. It isn't really a complicated 'maneuver'. And, as discussed earlier in the article, the dangers are about on par with oral sex. So, I don't see how much more inclusive a discussion could be besides describing the act, which the references do. PromisedProgress (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added five sources that discuss the practice, including one that specifically mentions the film Clerks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I see that some of my sources are mentioned above. Still, it's better to have them in the article than just here at the AfD. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References added, not a neologism, problem solved. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Fullobeans — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.