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 delete. Almost totally unsourced, and it failed to assert notability. As this is probably controversial, and you don't agree with this result, please take it to WP:DRV. Majorly (Talk) 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ass to mouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page violates WP:NEO, WP:N, and largely WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Just because a porn film or so was named "Ass to Mouth" does not make it notable enough for an article. Moreover, it has only one source to a dialog in one porn film where "Ass to mouth" is mentioned. CyberAnth 02:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, google hits are very high. This term is in common usage, it does not violate WP:NEO, WP:N or WP:NOR. A cite tag would be sifficient to cover WP:V. Mallanox 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it would not. Actual citations would. But you haven't presented any. Counting Google hits is not research. Nor does it demonstrate the existence of sources. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's nice to be broadminded. But there is a point where our brains fall out. This article is well beyond that boundary. Maybe should be considered for WikiPorn.  :( Student7 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mallanox. To Student7, Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on most sexual fetishes; this is pretty mild in comparison to some of them, and it _is_ an established term in the industry. Tevildo 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not, however, documented. Wikipedia is not for documenting the undocumented. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mallanox Savant45 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mallanox. It's definitely not a neologism. (Also, Clerks II is not a porn film.) —bbatsell ¿? 03:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-established term for a common practice in porn films, although I would prefer seeing one big article with these "porn film terms" combined, instead of a bunch of smaller ones. =Axlq 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cant we make this a redirect to Anal Oral Contact or something? I know wikipedia isn't censored but.... if your making articles with titles like that, why not just officially change the names of "naughty bits" to their vulgar counterparts? It's not exactly the sort of term you would find such a thing under in sexuality or medical books now is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TehKewl1 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Medical books, no, but it is the term that's used in the porn industry, and we should reference it under its most common name. A2M and ATM aren't options, for obvious reasons - and we'd still need a redirect from the unabbreviated name. Tevildo 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't deny that I find the topic pretty sick, but it seem to satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. TSO1D 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Anal-oral contact. Otto4711 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that this practice does not involve anal-oral contact, as anyone who reads the article will discover. It's generally a good idea to read the article before offering an opinion on the AfD. Tevildo 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a good idea not to be condescending. Otto4711 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable -- Jmax- 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cite or Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NN. I'm completely willing to accept that this may be a commonly used industry term, but where is the verifiable citation of that? In it's current form the only reference is to the use of the term in Clerks II, which would make it a neologism by definition (and not a common one). This article needs to CITE AND VERIFY notability, not simply have a collection of editors here make assertions that "it really IS a common term, really!". I'm aware there are a number of terms in every industry that are commonly used colloquially but hard to prove, but it strikes that if there is any industry where one should be able to verify via web-based sources, it would be the adult industry. -Markeer 13:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to anal sex. The term is for the most part a neologism of a sexual "move" seldom seen outside of the porno industry. It's usage in the movie Clerks II gives it some more notability but it fails to solve reliable sources and verifiabilty issues. A blurb in the anal sex article would do just fine. Same with the "ass to pussy" article because as is stands now both of these articles fail policy criteria for inclusion. NeoFreak 13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable in the pornographic community.--Yannismarou 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lots of non-notable things are known to some community or other. Multiple reliable mainstream independent sources are required to attest to the notability of a term. Edison 16:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd just like to remind everyone that neologisms are defined by how long the term has been around, and this term has been around for quite a bit longer than Clerks 2. This, and the above Ass to pussy are colloquialisms, in other words, they are used informally in conversation - that doesn't automatically make them a neologism any more than blowjob is. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course the term has been around longer than Clerks II. The problem is finding reliable sources to provide verifiability so you can then establish notability which this article does not do. NeoFreak 20:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's what I think. I say start a new article, double dipping and merge this and the Ass to pussy articles and redirect them there. These terms seem to be common in the porn community. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Mhking 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ATM is the newest rage in adult film. So I've heard. DelPlaya 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DelPlaya's vote is the core problem with this debate at the moment, specifically for "so I've heard". I don't think anyone here is doubting that this is an industry term. The delete votes that I see (my own included) are that the article does not verify this according to wikipedia's policies. "Everybody knows", "It's well known", "I hear it a lot", etc are all weasel arguments used to avoid citation. If no one is able to find a verifiable source for the phrase on the web for a term used in an industry with the largest web presence, that means the term is of questionable encyclopedic quality. -Markeer 12:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I strongly support Markeer's above comments. He or she is right on. CyberAnth 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - no reason for this to be separate from an anal or oral sex article. Not enough references to justify separate article. Hatch68 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks again, porn, for introducing completely ridiculous expressions into the common lexicon! Ford MF 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• By the same token, Markeer, a bit of a problem arises in applying the same standards of verifiability to sexual colloquialisms (particularly of fringe sexual practices some may find unpleasant) as we do to, say, astronomical taxonomy. Sometimes "uh, doesn't everybody know what ass to mouth is" is what you have to work with, and you go from there. That's what that particular behavior is called (I can't think of a synonymous expression), and I really don't see why we need a citation from the New England Journal of Medicine to prove that. Handjob, rimjob, these are really not things you're going to have an easy time finding citations for, despite sexual behaviors occupying a central part in every culture that continues to produce babies (and orgasms). "Blowjob" is about 150 years old, and it's only very recently that etymologists have started to trace its origins. I don't think it would be a terrible idea to move this to a more encyclopedic-sounding title (although I can't begin to imagine what that would be Immediately-Post-Anal-Sex Oral Sex?), with a redirect from ass to mouth, a la, titty fuck redirecting to mammary intercourse. Maybe that would make everyone happy. Ford MF 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would make everyone happy are source citations. Your lengthy apology for the fact that this concept is unverifiable doesn't excuse it from the application of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If no-one has seen fit to document something, that is not Wikipedia's problem.

    By the way, discussion of etymology is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. The dictionary is over there. Wikipedia's articles are about people, places, concepts, events, and things. Unless you can show, by citing sources, that this is a documented concept, it may not have an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the above editors have cited any sources. The article itself cites no sources. The only thing that it does cite is the quotations page for an IMDB entry on a film. That film is a work of fiction. There is no reason to believe that what the characters say is factual. Moreover, the quotations given don't even explain what the concept actually is in the first place.

  Searching for sources on the subject of ass-to-mouth fucking, I find nothing at all.

  The only web site that I found that purports to even answer the question "What is ass-to-mouth fucking?" comprises nothing but hyperlinks, and doesn't even answer the question. The only book that mentions the concept of an ass-to-mouth fetish is Kick, Russ (2005). Everything You Know About Sex Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to the Extremes of Human Sexuality. The Disinformation Company. ISBN 1932857176.. It mentions it once, on page 151, in one sentence giving it as one of a list of dangerous practices. It doesn't even say what it actually is.

  The only journal article turned up by Google Scholar is Jack Sargeant (November 2006). "Filth and Sexual Excess: Some Brief Reflections on Popular Scatology". M/C Journal. 9 (5).. However, checking the references cited by that article, it turns out that the journal article is not only using the aforementioned book that doesn't document the concept but also is using this Wikipedia article as its source in the first place.

  This entire article is unverifiable and is primary documentation of something that hasn't actually been documented anywhere outside of Wikipedia, a violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. I suggest that editors wanting this concept to be documented go and get the concept properly documented in books and articles. Then it becomes eligible for a Wikipedia article. Delete. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: - Further to Uncle G's efforts to verify this article, I searched for the phrase in my major University's many databases of materials. I tried EBSCO databases, LexisNexis, WorldCat, and several major databases from the fields of medicine and psychology. The only thing perhaps relevant I came up with was a reference impertinent to the article, a 1959 novel called The Ass's Mouth. ;-) CyberAnth 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I am 100% unsurprised that medical and psychological researched turned up nothing. However, cast your eyes over the net and you will see thousands (Google says millions, but let's be realistic) of uses of the term. With this much weight of evidence, to argue WP:V is arguing semantics. The term is not unverifiable but by dint of what it is "respectable" sources won't mention it. Remember, Wikipedia is unusual in that it is uncensored. Mallanox 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counting Google hits is not research, and whether a phrase is in widespread use is only relevant to a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. What is relevant to an encyclopaedia is the existence of sources, and you still haven't cited any to show that any actually exist. Citing sources is your only counter to the charge that the article is unverifiable and original research. Continue to fail to do so, and you won't save the article, no matter how much you put forward irrelevant arguments about censorship. Uncle G 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable term that's managed to become mainstream. Kingfox 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it, by citing sources. Show that this concept has been documented by "the mainstream". There is no evidence that it has been documented anywhere at all. Uncle G 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is one main reason why it simply does not meet muster of WP:NEO. CyberAnth 07:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd just like to quote WP:AN page on why we should avoid neologisms- "[...]articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims 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." Blueaster 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - for those saying "Keep", I think you need to carefully review WP:NEO. This article just does not meet muster. CyberAnth 07:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, in my opinion, and remember these are opinions that we have even though some present them as fact, this article is valid. This practice goes on and if Wikipedia is to have any credibility it must be complete, if we are to have a category on sexual practices it should give the prevalent ones. This is an example of where WP:IAR (though I shudder to use it) is appropriate. There is a huge swathe of uses of Ass to mouth, ATM, A2M etc on the internet. There are interviews that include the term, it's not just in the "script" of a porn shoot, it is used verbally to communicate an idea. This is something real people do in their everyday lives, like it or not. Adherence to rules is ok but recognising when the rules don't serve the purpose for which they were written is essential. Mallanox 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• you do realize that "Ignore All Rules" is a controversial policy, right? and WP is not supposed to be about every single thing under the sun... If Wikipedia is to have any credibility, it should only have reliable, encyclopedic content that is not based on personal observation or research. The fact that this article violates so many policies and guidelines must raise at least one red flag in your head. And the phrase that this article is about just seems to be so unnotable -both from WP's standards and any layman's subjective viewpoint- even if it is often and only used in the porn industry. I mean, it clearly and without any wordplay or use of unconventional phrasing describes the act. It is unlikely to qualify for a copyright. It does not seem to be any special phrase whose history can be reliably traced. I mean, if this article is to exist, then we might as well create an article for "Guy On Guy" or something like that.

• Anyways, I say Delete or Merge (But I see no future for this content, even if it were merged) Blueaster 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To satisfy the reference Nazis, I added references proving that this term has been in use and clearly defined for well over a decade. That doesn't seem like a Neologism to me. (posted on 1 January 2007 by User:86.16.115.162

• I Removed the references placed into the article by User:86.16.115.162 because the google.groups.com "references" here and here that he/she placed are not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. What the sources do prove, however, is that "Ass to mouth" is, in fact, a neologism that violates WP:NEO...meaning the article should not exist. WP:NEO states that 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. Per the section mentioned, "Reliable sources for neologism", 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. **Folks, this one is a no-brainer**. If "books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term" cannot be sourced into the article, this must per WP:NEO policy be deleted. CyberAnth 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, added a couple of references. One to the number of websearches for the term "ass to mouth" to demonstrate the penetration (pardon the pun) of the term into the English language. Also an article which references the health risks of the act. Mallanox 01:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge with other similar porn terms into a single article. --Strait 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - maybe you just do not understand, Malla. For a source to be considered reliable in an article about a neologism, per WP:NEO, which would justify an article about a neologism, the following must be followed: "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. The source you added to Ass to mouth is merely an article that uses the term by noting "there is currently a trendy fetish for ass-to-mouth contact." Per WP:NEO, "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use", even though Google hits "show many examples of the term in use" - that is just not enough to justify an article about a neologism, yet your vote for "Keep" was based upon "google hits are very high. This term is in common usage." My friend, the base of your vote is irrelevant to this matter. It seems most votes are being cast here upon mere editor preference. I cannot understand why people seem to have so much difficulty simply reading and following the clearly stated policies at WP:NEO, although apparently so not always so, as even the NfV for Handjob is seeming to right now indicate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Handjob. CyberAnth 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I call shenanigans. A colloquial sexual term is never going to be verifiable to the standard of a scientific article, but that doesn't make it unworthy of inclusion. This article already survived one VfD. I believe Cyberanth is cunningly pushing a personal agenda by using overly strict interpretation of the rules with no regard to context. Note that he/she has recently nominated several long-standing sexual-practise type articles on similar grounds. Note also that his/her major contributions have been to articles about Christian views on contraception. You do the math. (The preceding unsigned comment was added on 23:30, 1 January 2007 by User:86.16.115.162

please dont use personal attacks, and assume good faith in interacting with other editors on WP Blueaster 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's difficult to assume good faith when someone is gunning for the article so strongly that that they revert edits that were made in an effort to improve it.

• • I call follow the policies - The "math" is that that your post is a Personal Attack per WP:NPA. I have also recently written an article on Bonny Hicks, a Singaporean model who wrote controversial books on her sexuality. How does that fit into your stereotype of me? Also, the context is highly regarded in my mind. This is an encyclopedia of verifiable information on notable subjects, not a place for people to create articles about neologisms that have failed that. There are, in fact, articles that can satisfy WP:NEO, but this is not one of them. My interpretation of WP:NEO is not overly strict. As I will show below, each vote for "keep" here has apparently not bothered to try to follow it at all. CyberAnth 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's evaluate the basis of the "Keep" votes, besides Mallanox's which I already evaluated above.

• Keep - per Mallanox. To Student7, Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on most sexual fetishes; this is pretty mild in comparison to some of them, and it _is_ an established term in the industry. Tevildo 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Censorship is not the issue. Satisfying WP:NEO is the core matter. "Mild" or "extreme" is irrelevant. "An established term in the [porn] industry is what defines it as a neologism per WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (emphasis added). For an article to be justified, more than that is needed. "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "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."

• Keep. Notable in the pornographic community.--Yannismarou 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • See comment above.

• Keep - ATM is the newest rage in adult film. So I've heard. DelPlaya 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see comment above.

• Keep - Notable term that's managed to become mainstream. Kingfox 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Which "mainstream"? Kingfox must mean "the porn industry". I live in the "mainstream" and I first heard of it on Wikipedia. Even so, "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "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."

• Keep - Thanks again, porn, for introducing completely ridiculous expressions into the common lexicon! Ford MF 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • See comment above.

• Keep - notable -- Jmax- 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Per which "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term"? That is what would make it "notable" per WP:NEO.

• Keep - I can't deny that I find the topic pretty sick, but it seem to satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. TSO1D 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Criteria for inclusion of an article about a neologism is "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "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 fails that; thus, it fails inclusion criteria.

CyberAnth 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If wanted to make a personal attack, I could have done much better than that. What I did was point out the pattern of your behavior and evidence of the the motivations that may be behind it, verifiable for all to see.

• Comment as Uncle G pointed out on a similar AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Handjob , the article is not about a neologism therefore WP:NEO is not an issue. The article is about a perfectly notable, verifiable activity. I refer back to my initial statement on the subject. Mallanox 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not neccecarilly. If this article were to be about the activity, and nothing more, a more appropriate title would be "Oral to Anal Intercourse" or maybe "Oral/Anal Sexual Intercourse". The phrase that this article uses is a colloqialism, and it tries to document the term's usage, and so it clearly is about the term, not the activity. And therefore, it is affected by the No Neologisms policy. Blueaster 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - why don't we rename Semen to Cum? Or Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Or Cunnilingus to Going down on? Or Fellatio to Head job? At best, any verifiable material in Ass to mouth needs to be merged into Human sexual behavior and described as Anal to oral contact. As is, this article is simply trying to document a currently trendy fetish in a small number of porn films, nothing more. That by definition is not notable because there is no evidence that "it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." CyberAnth 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you even read the article you're trying so hard to kill? As has already been pointed out, Ass to Mouth is a completely different thing and does not involve anal-oral contact at all. There is no formal or better-known name for the practise. As for the "small number" of porn films, may I ask how you define small? The porn industry puts out DVDs at a phenomenal rate. How many thousands of titles do you need?

"...if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." That does not include if a Wikipedian has watched scads of porn films with covers containing the term "Ass to Mouth" and can cite them as containing the act. CyberAnth 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on latest ref added to article - Ass to mouth is admittedly about a colloquial term used in the porn industry to describe Anal-oral contact. The newly cited source is simply another example of a paper that uses the term, but is not about the term. The purpose of the cited source is, in the author's own words, "to challenge us -- in harsh language -- on men’s use of pornography". And it is therein that he uses "Ass to mouth". CyberAnth 08:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the only material I could from the article and placed it into Anal-oral contact#Anal-oral contact in popular culture. What is left is well-cited within that context. CyberAnth 08:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two most recently added references do more than just use the term, they describe it's meaning and practise. Why do you persist in going on about Anal-oral contact when you should know by now that Ass to mouth can be performed without anyone's mouth being near anyone else's ass? You appear to be demanding nothing short of multiple peer-reviewed academic research papers on the subject, which is totally unreasonable in this context, and just adds to the impression that you are attempting to effectively censor the article by setting unattainable standards. As for your your edit to Anal-oral contact, did you even read it first? The second paragraph of that article says: "It is a distinct practice from anal sex followed by fellatio, which is often referred to as ass to mouth."

I have to agree, multiple source have been provided that the practice exists. It is real beyond doubt. As already stated, the source doesn't have to be about the origins of the term. If I added a source to England it should prove there is a country called England on the island of Great Britain not why it's called England and where the term comes from. The crux of argument, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don't know what to call it. It seems to have no proper name. In this instance I suggest we use a term that brings back a massive number of Google hits and move on to another subject who's verifiability and notability are in doubt. Mallanox 13:10, 2 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.