- Ass to mouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Keep voters made stronger arguments than delete voters and the article is verifiable. This is a widely used term/practice that should be covered in Wikipedia for comprehensiveness on topics relating to sexual practices and preferences. I request we Overturn deletion of this article. Johntex\talk 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion they might have been louder, but regardless of how loud anyone is, it still fails policy. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It sucks, I know, since there's a lot of things we want to write about but can't because of a lack of external sources.. but this is a key policy to how Wikipedia works. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Finding reliable refrences for a sexual practice is difficult, but not impossible. For example, here is an article talking about the dangers of working in the pornographic industry, including the danger of practicing ass-to-mouth. It even includes an appeal for a health fund. Clearly this is importnat information. This glossary is from another site aiming to provide safer working conditions for sex workers. Johntex\talk 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how it works... sometimes we give things a grace period for sources, sometimes we don't. We're always in our right to remove anything unsourced, including this article. I've never seen the article itself, but I'm guessing it's not even notable in the first place, sourced or not. Start new if you want this topic covered on Wikipedia, because you're not guaranteed a grace period. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's not how it works? And who asked for a grace period? Not I. I am pointing out that the closing admin made a mistake. The topic is notable and verifible. The keep voters already pointed this out (note I did not vote in the AfD myself) and they did so with better arguments than those that favored deletion. We must overturn the deletion. Johntex\talk 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion per Johntex. Full disclosure, I voted keep in the AfD. I felt at the time that the deletion violated consensus (and it looks like the closing admin thought so too, hence his/her close comment), but I didn't have the energy to deal with DRV. Contrary to the closing comment, I feel that the article asserted notability, the AfD discussion asserted notability, and the sources provided in the article, AfD and by Johntex above show verifiability. It is difficult to source sex articles due to a myriad of social stigmas in traditionally reliable sources, so in my opinion we have to take what we can get. This article was fine, and the deletion was out of process. —bbatsell ¿? 05:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, we do not have to "take what we get". If an article can't be sourced well, that can not be ignored on the grounds of "oh, well people don't like covering it". Articles need sources, period. -Amarkov blahedits 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not intend to imply that "take what we can get" means no sources whatsoever (and if that is how it was interpreted, my apologies). As posted above by Johntex, we do have sources; my only point was that editors who are accustomed to being able to find a plethora of articles in the New York Times or World Book would not be able to do the same here, and that should not count against an article. If it's completely unsourceable, then it should not be on Wikipedia, no question. —bbatsell ¿? 06:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bbatsell is exactly right. The type of source we use for an article will necessarily vary by topic. The Economist and Wall Street Journal and Science are unlikely to have written about Pearland High School or the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. The topic will to some extent dictate the sources we are able to use. Johntex\talk 08:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, valid close. If Johntex thinks this is a genuinely important topic distinct from Anal-oral contact, where it currently redirects (and I sure as hell don't), then he's welcome to write a better article, and I'll give him the deleted history to work from if he likes. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have access to deleted history, being that I'm an administrator and all. "Ass to mouth" is certainly distinct from "Anal-oral contact" because the former specifically includes NO anal-oral contact. Johntex\talk 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreeing, I don't even need to be an administrator and I know these are two quite different acts. Mathmo Talk 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've changed the redirect to Anal sex. If this term doesn't deserve its own article, at least the redirect should be accurate. Tevildo 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A copy of this page was recently requested to be worked on in userspace, and is located here. --Majorly (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, the more I think about this, the more I think we should give Max Hardcore his own wiki to stop this absolute crap from infesting Wikipedia. It's relevant to a subset of a subset of a subset of the pornography video market, who are themselves a minority in the population. The total budget of one of these "movies" would maybe cover the coffee bill for a day's filming of a real film, yet we treat them as if they are somehow significant. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- JzG, although I respect you, I believe your comment above shows that you have a deep bias against topics related to pornography and about sexual practices you believe are only practiced by a minority. We have lots of articles on things that only interest a small percentage of the world's population. Pontecagnano Faiano is one, and it has no references. Would you see us delete it? Johntex\talk 20:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreeing with Johntex here again, JzG do you realise how much money is in pornography? It is not just a "few cups of coffee" that we are talking about, there are porno movies which cost multimillion dollar amounts to produce. Mathmo Talk 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think he's saying it's not notable. Just because you give something a name doesn't mean the topic of that act is notable. So in addition to the verifiability issues, there's the issue of this being no more than a dictionary definition of a non-notable sex act. -- Ned Scott 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The page has been unilaterally (and, I assume, in good faith) been recreated (as a dicdef, so presumably not G4-able) by 24.252.70.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Just feel I should mention it here. Tevildo 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Theoretically, this is about process rather than content, so I'll confine myself to that side of things. (1) The AfD was nominated by User:CyberAnth, who is currently the subject of two AN/I references for indiscriminate AfD proposals of sex-related articles. The AfDs on non-notable wrestlers proposed by the notorious JB196 are (rightly) regarded as invalid - I know we can't invoke precedent, but this situation seems remarkably similar. (2) Although the number of Keep vs Delete opinions is irrelevant, many of the Delete opinions seem to be based on a distaste for the subject rather than the merits of the article; indeed, many of those !voting Delete had obviously not even read the article beforehand. (3) As we can see from the re-creation of this article, the wider community quite clearly believe that this topic - which is a major part of contemporary pornography, like it or not - needs to be distinguished from anal sex simpliciter. Trying to delete it on mere technicalities isn't going to work in the long run - it hasn't worked in the short run. Tevildo 01:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion The article provides no reliable sources to permit verification. (aeropagitica) 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None? Really? There is one in the deleted article that is undeniably a reliable source, and there are several provided by Johntex above. I have also given my thoughts regarding sourcing articles of this type above. Ah, well. —bbatsell ¿? 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, I have the article in my sandbox. I have started work on improvement. If anyone has any suggests or wans to work in it from there, feel free. So far I can stablish that there are at least 35 pornographic films using Ass to mouth, ATM or A2M as their titles, it is unlikely to be able to estimate how many films the act is performed it though it will be considerably higher. I can't think of another sex act that is regularly performed in such films and, let's face it, real life as well that doesn't have an article. The article is true and verifiable. The notability comes from its prevalence. I have further demonstrated the use of the term in gay pornography which was not in the article when it was deleted. It has already been demonstrated that the use of the term has escaped the environs of pornography. It is obvious that the term won't be bandied around everywhere as most media perform some kind of censorship (thank God for Wikipedia), and it's hardly a dinner table subject.
- The nomination was clearly flawed, and I feel that many people, myself included, were foxed into thinking it was a debate about WP:NEO, the nominator repeatedly stated that was her main reason for deletion. The nominator displayed disruptive behaviour which I mentioned on her talk page. I do not think it was her intention to distract from legitimate debate but that was the upshot. Deletion of the article has caused many redlinks to appear though this will not currently be apparent as someone has created a new article on the subject which is vastly inferior to the one that was deleted. This is the effect relinks have, of course, they are an invitation to expand into areas Wikipedia has missed so far. Wikipedias strength is that it will go into territory other encyclopaedias balk at. The absence of an article on this topic would be incongruous and a clear gap in coverage of human sexuality. Mallanox 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put up the DRV tag and moved the content into the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anal-oral contact is not under review. Someone simply remade Ass to mouth as a redirect to Anal-oral, but as far as I know they are two separate articles. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also according to the logs that article was also never even deleted. It should be restored as soon as possible as it is not up for a DRV. --67.68.152.3 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry. Got tricked by the redirect and the comment above that the article was restored. Hope all is back to normal now. ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think it would be a good idea to put the DRV tag on the article under discussion, if only to discourage well-intentioned but inexperienced editors from correcting a perceived unsatisfactory situation. :) Tevildo 07:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I hope I got it right this time. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I contributed to the confusion by reverting the substantive expansion of the page and returning it to its recreated state as a redirect (such redirect probably pointed to the wrong page, which detail also escaped me); I assumed in view of the recreation by Samuel that a consensus had emerged at AfD for the page's being maintained as a redirect, but I see now that such assumption was entirely wrong (although there doesn't appear to have been any firm consensus against the page's being recreated as a redirect). Apologies, in any case... Joe 08:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn this one please the term is very notable not like bean queen and should have many sources to show it Yuckfoo 10:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn verifiable per Clerks II Catchpole 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the Ass to mouth AfD nominator
I am the nominator and I can assure everyone that was is claimed above as my "indiscriminate AfD proposals" have, in fact, been good faith noms per my best ability to understand and apply WP content policies to improve this Project.
During the Ass to mouth AfD debate, it appeared to me that the majority of people arguing in favor of non-deletion were simply doing so based upon preference and not policy; that policy meant whatever the editor wanted it to be. That is very troubling to me for the future and quality of this Project.
I also wanted to inform that the Deletion review nominator here shortly after Ass to mouth was deleted proposed what appears to me and others a weakening of WP:V at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:ANI and planned clarification.
Thanks for hearing me out.
CyberAnth 12:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it was, as a redirect to Anal-oral contact. Sam Blacketer 12:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure by the book. What sources? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and let some of the article's new found attention be used to improve its sourcing. The concept/term is widely used in pornography so sources will not be hard to find. Simply deleting the page is on Over The Top reaction to a poorly sourced article. There was little time given to allow the article to be worked on.-Localzuk(talk) 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. It never was an encylopedia article and it never will be. This is yet another attempt to turn Wikipedia into a dictionary of street slang. The nominator should know better than to waste our time with this. --JWSchmidt 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, actually read the comments of those who voted for deletion. It largely boils down to we don't like it and there's a bit of WP:V in there for good measure. I believe it is possible to prove the verifiability and notability of the subject and I believe the sources I have found prove that. The article goes well beyond a decdef as is evidenced by the analysis of its usage and it's history as a subject. If any editor feels their time has been wasted on this subject, it baffles me why they take the time to say so. Mallanox 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - As with the the majority of the sexcually themed nominations we've had of late this is basically wikilawyering as a rationalization of censorship. Artw 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and undelete as an improper close, and a2m the next person who thinks its a wise idea to attempt deleting this clearly notable subject. Silensor 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse' -- split off from Anal-oral contact only in the unlikely event that enough verifiable information is added to that article to crowd it. Perfectly reasonable AfD decision, why are we bothering to review it? Jkelly 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete and Transwiki ; I do not necessarily endorse the course of the AfD, but it came to the right action for the wrong reasons: this is a dictionary definition and nothing more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Mallanox. This is yuck, but it's a legitimate topic for Wikipedia, and WP:V is met by the references now at User:Mallanox/Sandbox. — coelacan talk — 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn it is undeniable that this term is widely used. The fact that it is widely used by the pornographic film industry does not make it less valid. Also, the deletion of this article did not take in consideration the pages that linked to this article. As a result, these pages now have red links:
- John Stagliano
- Aurora Snow
- Gauge (porn star)
- Jenna Haze
- Jules Jordan
- Melissa Lauren
- Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 6
- List of View Askewniverse motifs
- User talk:Annalyticalbee
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 2
- Anal sex
- ATM
- Coprophagia
- Jay and Silent Bob
- Talk:Anal-oral contact
- Wikipedia:List of protected pages
- List of sexology topics
- Talk:Anal sex
- User talk:SamuelWantman
- User:ALargeElk/External links
- Talk:Dirty Sanchez
- Alisha Klass
- Ass worship
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to Mouth
- Max Hardcore
- Ariana Jollee
- User talk:Dante Alighieri/Archive 3
- User talk:216.83.97.2
- Tiffany Mynx
- List of pornographic sub-genres
- A2M
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 10
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Karl
- User talk:212.138.47.23
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 1
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Carl
- Jayna Oso
- Taylor Hayes (porn star)
- Angel Dark
- Cindy Crawford (porn star)
- Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 3
- User talk:70.82.128.118
- Wikipedia:Deletion review
- Talk:Top (sex)
- Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sexual Slang
- User talk:195.252.89.42
- User talk:69.117.39.7
- Artificial Mind and Movement
- Sophie Evans
- User talk:69.251.170.178
- User:Wilt/VandalismLog
- User:Mallanox
- User talk:60.228.219.54
- User talk:71.142.4.230
- User:Glen S/VandalismLog
- User talk:24.141.154.240
- User talk:66.190.12.185
- User:CyberAnth
- User talk:71.2.33.245
- User talk:70.254.3.149
- User:Gmaxwell/nocite/a
- User talk:24.45.189.159
- User talk:Anthony.bradbury/Archive1
- User talk:24.46.85.83
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log
- User talk:71.10.127.213
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 27
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to pussy
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to mouth
- User talk:Majorly
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 6--16 desember 6 januari 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse status quo - a redirect (to anal sex) is fine (but note it is not anal-oral contact - ass to mouth is when a woman (or a man) has a penis up their bottom, then puts it in their mouth. Anal-oral contact is rimjobbing, etc). The use of 'ass to mouth / a2m / A2M' in the title of a mnovie doesn't mean we ought to have an article; the phrases 'Buttz', 'Teenage Anal Princess' or 'Naughty College Schoolgirls' appear in the title of plenty of porn films, but we don't have an article on that. Proto::► 10:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A valid point - on the other hand, we have deep throat (sexual act) as an article in its own right, rather than a redirect to oral sex or to Deep Throat (film). I would argue that A2M is equally, if not more, distinct from basic anal sex as deep throating is from basic oral sex, and so would support a separate article. In any case, if we keep the page as a redirect, someone is going to rewrite it - if this DRV comes up with a delete recommendation, I think we'd better go all the way and salt the page. Tevildo 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the term is used widely enough to have been used in a talk by Professor Robert Jensen, Ph.D. of the University of Texas in a presentation to a conference at Saint John’s University, Collegeville, MN, February 26, 2005. PDF transcript. Johntex\talk 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article in the sandbox now has 8 in-line references. Johntex\talk 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse DeletionI consider myself to be one of the most liberal editors on sexual topics having undeleted Playboy Online, Playboy Cyber Club and related pages I must say that I actually support the redirect approach. The page is to trivial in terms of content. If the page had more significant content then I could factor in the number of page links. However, in this case, unless the editor wants to propose an expanded page, there is no reason to have anything but a redirect. My vote is to endorse the deletion, but keep the door open for a significantly expanded reconsideration. TonyTheTiger 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion Just because we may not like the existence of such a practice, doesn't mean that an article on that practice should not exist. The practice exists, is verifiable, is not a POV issue and we shouldn't censure, which is what seems to have happened. --Bob 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Johntex and Bbatsell. Term appears notable and I see no concensus to delete in the AfD. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Johntex, it appears he has found a site that clearly passes WP:RS. The term is notable (and I find that rather disturbing) but rehashing this debate is pointless, with reliable sources it should be overturned. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion. The deletion decision did not follow consensus; majority view was to keep (I counted 9 more keeps than deletes, actually). =Axlq 06:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't use "votes", but valid arguments and rationales. Most of the keeps lacked such rationale. This is a prime example of why we are not a democracy. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My read of the situation was exactly the opposite. The keeps had good rationale, the deletes just had ick factor and a focus on the writing of the article - which is not valid grounds for deletion. Johntex\talk 06:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will admit, not all the delete supports were logical, but again, that is why we don't look at numbers alone. A non-notable dictionary type article is still a non-notable dictionary type article. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely agree with you that we don't allow dicdefs. I think this article has grown beyond that, however. We definitely have more informaiton there than a dicttionary would provide. It may never be thorough enough to be a Featured Article, but we have lots of little articles like that. Above you said, "I've never seen the article itself,..." Have you had a chance to look at the article yet? I think the most current copy is at User:Mallanox/Sandbox. Please check it out and let us know if you think it can stand as a short encyclopedia article. Thanks, Johntex\talk 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Johntex, I did not see a delete consensus in the AfD. VegaDark 08:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the deletion was wrong, ok, but at least read the discussion first. The article wasn't deleted based on consensus, it was deleted based on "Almost totally unsourced, and it failed to assert notability.", aka, policy. A consensus is not required to delete something for failing policy. -- Ned Scott 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fully aware of the reasons behind the deletion. I disagreed with them. Notability is a guideline, just like consensus is a guideline. Apparently there were some sources before the deletion, so it would pass verifiablity. Therefore the closer was using the existence of one guideline (WP:N) as justification to ignore another guideline (WP:C). But, now that Johntex found an aditional reliable source, it now passes WP:N as well. VegaDark 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and undelete per Johntex. The subject has multiple sources available, and consensus was lacking for deletion. RFerreira 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and restore. Article did assert notability as an important trend, which was recognized by Afd consensus. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - The arguments for deletion were valid; it was unsourced and did not seem to improve over the 5 days of AfD with suggestions that it would be difficult to source. The arguments for keep were equally valid; it is not a neologism, nor was it original research, and it is a notable sex act. Therefore the decision should have been to keep by default per no consensus, but it seems like the closing administrator took it upon themselves to delete instead (even noting that we should come straight to DRV). As a side comment, I'd like to point out that while the article was deleted, the sandbox version fixes all of the policy complaints of the nomination/close and so the discussion is somewhat moot since the final decision was (by default) without prejudice. Whether the sandbox is merged into an overturned DRV or placed on an open article space, the result is the same and would easily withstand a new AfD. ju66l3r 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Endorse Overturning deletion - As the editor above pointed out it should have defaulted to no consensus. Plus also generally I feel the article should exist, it is a common sex act and will have plenty of places in wikipedia where it could be linked to. Was planning to link to it myself in another article until I saw it didn't exist anymore, hence I'm here now writing this.... Mathmo Talk 06:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse overturning deletion it is a common sex act in hardcore pornography and the subject of many interviews with porn stars as to whether they will or won't perform the act. Much in the same vein as anal sex. Dismas|(talk) 09:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and restore. People were adding sources while the AfD was going on and they were being removed immediately by overzealous proponents of the AfD. I was the first one to add the reference by the Univ. of Texas professor (which I literally found in 30 seconds of Google searching), and within 1 minute of adding it, it had been deleted. There are certainly more sources available now than many other valid Wikipedia articles thanks to the work of the kind soul who has it in his sandbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.218.135 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
|