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 Biscuits and human sexuality. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I don't think this actually exists. There is one source, one I would challenge the reliability on. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be a synthesis of sorts. You can use just about anything in sex and call it a fetish/game/whatever, but without actual, reliable third party sources to back it up, all it is is sick a non-notable fetish/game/whatever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It pains me to a point to do this, but we have to look at everything involved. This article has survived deletion twice (no consensus both times). We should remind ourselves that Wikipedia is not censored, so the fact that this is a stub should not qualify it for deletion. The term itself is well documented across the internet. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then find reliable sources and also note that notwithstanding prior debates, consensus can change. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sourcing that this is a legitimate concept. TerriersFan (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — already in the transwiki process (I think?) at Wiktionary here. MuZemike (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least transwiki. There are two examples of the term's use in mainstream popular culture already cited in the article (The Liar was a hugely successful book, in particular), and anyone doubting that this is a genuine practice only has to spend the ten seconds it would take on Google or YouTube to see more of this than you'd ever want to see. – iridescent 22:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use google or youtube videos. Other than the <italic> The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, 1998, page 1110 </italic> there are no reliable sources for this. And I feel funny about calling a slang dictionary a reliable source. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use Google or YouTube as citations in the article. Those saying that this isn't a genuine practice can certainly use Google or YouTube to verify that said practice exists. – iridescent 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When deciding on articles, I look at them through a certain razor... sure, I am sure the practice has been tried. I won't deny that. But *IF* I can't prove it outside of my own original research, without reliable citations, then I fear I can't prove that it exists. Without even one reliable source, I think the article should go. We have a bar of notability to meet. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, she didn't encounter an issue of being unable to "prove it outside of [her] own original research, without reliable citations" considering she has one, and others have been found... because someone bothered to look. Also, what's unreliable about Cassell's dictionary? Just because it defines slang? There are many topics I don't like, but I wouldn't say books on those topics are unreliable just because they're focused on those topics. In fact:^[1]

::::In recent years dictionaries with a more academic focus have tried to bring together etymological studies in an attempt to provide definitive guides to slang while avoiding problems arising from folk etymology and false etymology. The study of slang is now taken seriously by academics, especially lexicographers like the late Eric Partridge, devoting their energies to the field and publishing on it, including producing slang dictionaries.

Examples include:

• Chambers Slang Dictionary (by Jonathon Green, Chambers Harrap Publishers, ISBN 9780550104397), previously Cassell Dictionary of Slang (Cassell Reference, 1998; last edition 2006, ISBN 9780304366361)

• Comment What's all this then? WP:BEFORE is very clear that one ought to make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating an article for AfD. It strains credibility that no-one could find a single reliable source for the existence of this phenomena. Skomorokh 23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, found nothing. Now I'll admit, I spent about ten minutes, but if you like, maybe I can visit my local library? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect to Biscuit sex which seems to duplicate that text anyway. Could do w/ cleanup, what's "male-oriented" mean? But if outcome is delete, last editor to have voted has to move it to his or her userpage. Franciscrot (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While I'm no fan of the topic, Merge with Biscuits and human sexuality nee Biscuit sex, i.e. keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reliable sources exist. Premature and ill-researched nom. لennavecia 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge and redirect to Biscuits and human sexuality, notability is demonstrated. the wub "?!" 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disgusted merge - notability seems to have been demonstrated, but it may be better merged into the larger article on Biscuits and sexuality. Majorly talk 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of porn. Delete though (or at best merge into a list of porn slang; not that such a list belongs here), unless you can prove it's more than something made up one day and in some way notable. Миша13 20:54, 1 January 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.