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 merge to Erotic sexual denial. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruined orgasm[edit]

Ruined orgasm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nonnotable neologism with no reliable sources needed to verify its acceptance of a term within any well-documented sexual practise. A google search brings up no reliable sources. Zero hits on google news and zero hits on google scholar. All that stands on the article as it is constitutes original research. Themfromspace (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be used in the broad community, so doesn't fail neologism; sources aren't great, but they are out there.  Chzz  ►  15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do you have any reliable sources to verify that assertion? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as per WP:NEO "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia". This means that being used in the "broad community" does not mean the term doesn't fail neologism. Sources need to be provided to show that this term is notable per the WP:NEO policy, not just that it is used. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Erotic sexual denial. This is not OR; I've added some links to show usage is widespread. But agree with the comments above--term does not warrant its own article, and will fit well as a section in Erotic sexual denial. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon closer inspection, the article was already merged once before with Erotic sexual denial, but that action was reverted, perhaps without good justification. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore merge with Erotic sexual denial. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - not sufficiently separate term or practice to need its own article distinct from other "denial" terminology and practices. Per usual norms we don't need an article on every term. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:40, 6 March 2009 (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.