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. John254 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a neologism. WP:NEO states that, for all articles about neologisms, all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. This article contains no references whatsoever and no indication based upon searches at a major University's databases, Google Scholar, or Google indicates that articles or books exist about the neologism as such. Therefore, and "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", this article must be deleted per WP:NEO and any pertinent content that could be cited that uses but is not about the article's colloquialisms placed into Homosexuality. CyberAnth 10:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyvio from here. The term could probably have an article about it since it's been around long enough that it's not really a neologism any more but obviously not with this text. Otto4711 13:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Keep per demonstration that it's not a copyvio. Otto4711 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that really a copyvio or a fork of Wikipedia? Tarinth
• Rename to Conventional sex which seems like a reasonable article topic, stubify and redirect this article to there. The term itself doesn't appear to be a neologism in widespread use. Keep Changing my mind, I think some people here have demonstrated that this is a valid encyclopedic topic, and no better name than the current article's title has been put forth. Tarinth 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a valid sexual topic. Sourcing sexual topics is always difficult since you wont find articles about it in the New York Times or Time (magazine). Sex is taboo even here in Wikipedia, which is probably why there is a current campaign to delete the sexual stub articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard, I agree with your reasoning. I'm just suggesting that the title of the article may be more of a neologism, and a broader name might be more accurate. Tarinth 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tarinth. And I agree with you. Either on is fine with a redirect to the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the neologism thing, the term appeared as a song title on a 1989 album. Punkmorten 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not a copyvio, the reported link [1] is not the source of this article, but the other way round. This is exemplified by (among others) this edit [2], where the last words of the alinea about the term were added separately (", in both sexual and non-sexual contexts."), but which is also present in the suggested link. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Cpt. Morgan. Squeezeweasel 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reasonably widespread term, certainly more so than the plethora of coprophilic sexual acts we have articles on, which repeatedly survive AFD. Fan-1967 19:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - renaming this to Conventional Sex will only change the grounds for deletion. "Conventional" asserts a POV. Also, sourcing sexual topics is always easy, if they are notable enough for their own article. CyberAnth 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seventy-nine Google News Archive results for "vanilla sex". I think you're deliberately not looking very hard, CyberAnth. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And each of those are articles that merely use the term. Per WP:NEO, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Like it or not, that is the criteria to make a neologism notable enough for its own article. CyberAnth 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, this seems to have more evidence of usage than at least half the items in Category:Sexual slang, many of which have survived AFD's on less. Fan-1967 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at Wanker which survived AfD. This is the first one I happened to look at. Here is its AfD page.

• The nominator gave no rationale for its deletion but only listed it.
• The discussion cited no policies, just votes apparently based on whether people were amused by it or not.
• The admin User:JIP decided "Keep" but did not follow WP:N: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Wanker has only one non-trivial published work cited. No blame to the admin, though, since no one even mentioned this glaring omission in the Afd discussion.

CyberAnth 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep It's used by numerous authors, columnists and writers and has become a valid part of the english language in my opinion. The only issue that remains is if this belongs here or wiktionary. Wintermut3 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of CanadianCaesar's "rules to live by" on his userpage is "Fuck morality, fuck notability, and fuck cleanup." CyberAnth 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelavent tripe that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Tarinth 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fuck notability" - nothing to do with a "Keep" vote cast that is, at core, about notability? CyberAnth 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that is important are the arguments presented here, not something you saw on someone's User page and possibly taken out of context. Tarinth 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Non-notable neologism? I think not. I first heard the term nearly 20 years ago, so I doubt whether "neologism" stands up. As for "non notable", if it reached this far-flung corner of the English-speaking world it's fair to say that it is almost certainly in use in many countries. 68000 non-wiki ghits should be some kind of indication in itself. The term has been used widely in the media, too, by everyone from The New York Times to The Sydney Morning Herald to NPR. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not subjective. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term", "even though there may be many examples of the term in use". That is the criteria for a neologism to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you dislike this, you are free to write an article about the neologism and submit it for review and publication, or try to change WP:NEO. CyberAnth 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When people stop writing about a neologism and just use the word, it's not a neologism anymore. Fan-1967 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with rename: It's a valid topic, but "vanilla sex" does not mean anything beyond "vanila" used figuratively and "sex". Conventional sex or a more precise clinical term would be an appropriate rename, with respect to worldwide view and usage among medical or other professionals. Peter Grey 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a well known term. In response to Peter Grey, Conventional sex would be a neologism. Mallanox 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also And vanilla sex violates

• Comment - "A topic is notable if and only "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." "The subject of" does not equal merely mentioned in. Right now, the cold hard facts mean the article does not meet that criteria. Note: Culling together sources that merely mention or use Vanilla sex as a colloquialism or slang term only asserts that the article is, in fact, Synthesis and Original Research. I suggest if you want to keep this article, you best expend your efforts finding sources where Vanilla sex *AS A SPECIFIC TERM* "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Notability is not subjective. Meeting notability per Wikipedia policies, and only that, is what will keep this article. - CyberAnth 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Heartfelt plea - Please stop underlining stuff in your comments. It makes them hard to read. Otto4711 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep "vanilla sex" has been discussed at least by implication in essentially everything written about other flavors; the use is universal, and the content real. I remind Cyber that the verifiability has to be about the subject & what is said about the subject. The term merely has to be shown to be the standard term, and that is surely clear enough. WP is NOT wiktionary. DGG 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete "Vanilla Sex" is not in and of itself a topic or thing that can be talked about beyond mere definition. "Vanilla" is commonly used to describe something ordinary or boring, thus "vanilla sex" is just ordinary or boring sex. I can't see how something like that can ever move beyond the Dictionary stage (which I think is borne out by the article as it stands) and therefore is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Nothing in the article purports scholarly use or cites any sources--it's just a colloquialism for unexciting intercourse.--Velvet elvis81 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Uioh 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a couple of sources. One is a criticism of the term "Vanilla Sex". The other is from the British Medical Journal, whose use of the term adds weight to its credibility. Especially as the paper it comes from is dated 1997. 10 years makes a neologism just that little bit less "neo". Mallanox 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also added: related term Vanilla partner Mallanox 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable term. In use far too long to constitute a neologism. Should be kept for comprehensiveness of the Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another tiresome nom Albatross2147 00:11, 7 January 2007 (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.