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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl necklace (sexuality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. Just to make it clear, Wikipedia is not censored and I fully respect that. It is also not a dictionary, and this "article" is just a dictionary definition of a sexual term poorly disguised as an encyclopedia article with a bonus dumping ground for trivia ad nauseum. Hopefully we can finally obtain a consensus this time around and do the right thing. JBsupreme (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Unless you want to lose Cum shot, Facial (sex act), Fellatio, Cunnilingus, 69 (sex position) and countless other articles which could also, by your standards, pass as dictionary definitions. Its been done to death for God's sake, let it lie. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • With respect and thanks to MuZemike for striking his comment, allow me please to clarify what I mean by my statement above, since this could be construed that I am threatening deletion on the articles I mentioned. My intention is to point out the fact that by listing Pearl Necklace for an AfD, it could *potentially* open the gate for a lot of other articles which could be seen as dicdefs to hit AfD. I did not intend my statement to threaten removal of any of the mentioned articles, merely to show the side effects of an AfD of this nature. Thanks for allowing me to clear this up. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a threat? That's a new low. MuZemike (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Stricken per [1]. MuZemike (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep — the sources display at least a minimal amount of notability; however, it needs more so that it can be better established and avoid further scrutiny AFD-wise. MuZemike (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the last AfD was leaning towards merge, but no one could agree what to merge it with. This has seven refs, it does have the potential to become a dumping ground for trivia, but when that happens it is quickly removed, and the article has been stable for months. Looking at the recent edit history and the talk page it seems that there is disagreement over the picture and this AfD has been started as the nuclear option. As is stands it is slightly more than a dicdef. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though the current state of the article is rather poor, it is a noteworthy enough subject to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Wanting to "do the right thing" is not justification enough for the deletion of an article. How many times does this discussion need to be had? In law there's a thing called double jeopardy. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability as an encyclopedic subject; seems to be basically a dictionary definition and the few references given seem to be examples of usages of the phrase rather than in-depth discussions of the concept itself. Properly belongs on wiktionary, but not here, per WP:DICT. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - And expand, subject is definitely notable and while I think it's more than a simple dictionary definition the article could benefit from some expansion. Raitchison (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are sufficient references for notability and although the border between dictionary definitions and encyclopedic articles may be fuzzy at times, this one seems to be sufficiently on the encyclopedic side to merit keeping. The argument to delete based on potential trivia magnetism is not policy based and should have absolutely no bearing on the close. Frankly, I think an appropriate amount of popular culture references enhances the value of an article, places the subject in a cultural context, and is a necessary and important service to our readers. I agree that the article does need work, but we fix problems with articles (other than intrinsic non-notability) by improvement, rather than deletion, per WP:BEFORE. — Becksguy (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or find somewhere more suitable for the subject to be dealt with. This is a culturally significant if rather small topic. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Less notable than fellatio, but notable enough for its own article. Its use on Sex and the City made it go into mainstream sex. No seriously, it has. See here "fashion trends, sexual vocabulary and dating rules established on Sex and the City soon found their way into mainstream fashion, sex and dating rituals" and on the page before the author is using as an example a piece of dialogue about pearl necklaces. I'm tempted to add this into the article :D It also appears on university press books, it made its way into a New Zealand University book about prostitutes activites and AIDS prevention [2] (pages 125 & 127) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At best its a dicdef, at worst it is a slang definition. There are other websites whose primary purpose is listing slang definitions and anyone interested can look it up there Pearl Necklace on urbandictionary.com Nathan Orth (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Mammary intercourse has slang definitions included too; tit fuck, titty fuck, French fuck...should these be taken out? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Struck my comments, realised I was using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And improve. Here's 600+ books that may help. It's a notable sex act and the article has been targeted for all manner of censorship. We should treat this encyclopedically. Also, IMHO that added illustration is more harm than help. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why not just merge it with the previously linked cum shot and facial articles then? All three articles describe the same thing (ejaculation on another person) they just differ by location. Someone wanting to censor this article for the wrong reasons does not make it not a definition so it still needs to be merged or deleted. Nathan Orth (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of them should be summarized in ejaculation or similar articles but each separately can be notable even if the articles are stubby. -- Banjeboi 04:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Google book search is evidence of the notability of the subject. Article can be expanded with those solid sources. Wikipedia is not censored. --Jmundo (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a non-slang term for this act? I'd like to say Merge, but Bukkake and Facial (sex act) both seem like porn jargon, which might make them overspecific merge targets. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bukkake is about a group Facial (sex act), and, as you may surmise, a facial is about ejaculation on someone's face. This is about ejaculation around someone's neck. The non-slang term remains ejaculation for all of these terms as well as money-shot and a host of others. -- Banjeboi 14:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT: "Bukkake", "Facial", and "Titty fuck" are not equivalent to "Pearl necklace". They all are specific sex acts involving ejaculation onto a person, rather than into a person (via oral, anal, or vaginal penetration), but clearly different from each other. And here are some additional reliable sources:

1. Davis, Peter, ed. (1996). Intimate Details and Vital Statistics: AIDS, Sexuality and the Social Order in New Zealand. Auckland University Press. pp. 125, 127. ISBN 978-1869401399. Retrieved 2009-01-09. From Enric Naval's post above. University press source, need we say any more?
2. Eric Partridge; Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2005). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Taylor & Francis. p. 1455. ISBN 978-0415259385. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Partridge is a well regarded dictionary. From Benji's list.
3. Morrissey, Gabrielle (2006). A Year of Spicy Sex. Marlowe & Company. p. 39. ISBN 978-1569242629. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Another from Benji's list.

The subject is clearly notable. — Becksguy (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-W're not censored, and the act is certainly a notable one. And a trout to the nom for urging us to "do the right thing". Umbralcorax (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We've been here before; the main change since earlier is that the term appears lot more in themainstream, and even shows up for comparison in Wikipedia in discussing other articles, generally in a context like "of course we have articles, on things like p.n., but [whatever] is purely imaginary. " DGG (talk) 05:07, 11 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.