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 WP:NACD CTJF83 GoUSA 22:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. We all know what this is, but that doesn't necessarily make it an encyclopedic topic. The photograph of semen dripping down a girl's neck (of unknown age) is also not particularly helpful to this project or the reader. JBsupreme (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Substantively, this might be a close call, not because of the sexual content, but because the article does border on a simple dictionary definition. However, this issue was thoroughly debated in an AfD last year and the decision was made to keep. Now, the same nominator has initiated yet another AfD. I'm not sure anything significant in the topic or Wikipedia standards has changed since then, so I would rely on the recently reached consensus and keep this article. Dlduncan2 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) — Dlduncan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I admire how familiar you are with Wikipedia policy given that you have 2 dozen edits to your name. This was nominated in good faith by another user who did not complete the steps fully. I have done that. JBsupreme (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Facial (sex act) of which this seems a special case. The term is notable but there is simply not enough content available to make a fully fledged article. TerriersFan (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as per TerriersFan above. Viridae^Talk 02:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep could probably be expanded and better sourced, but is a fairly notable term for an obviously common phenomenon. is there a clinical/sexological term for ejaculating outside the body on the partners skin? cum shot is the generic slang, for an act that doesnt seem to have a "proper" term for it. thus, while this too is a "slangy" word, its also the only word specifying this particular act, so it may deserve an article based on that. i would not be opposed to alternately merging this with facial, but there is a bit of difference. it does no harm to keep this as an article, as i see it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is redundant. We already have Facial (sex act) as an article. JBsupreme (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Meets the gng. Could use some expansion and more sourcing, but in no way is it non-notable or deserving of deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Per Dlduncan2 above. Seems to be discussed once a year, and each time an overwhelming number of people support keeping it, and a few people who seem to be offended by it try to delete it. Atom (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per last AfD outcome.--Milowent (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Nominator asserts: "We all know what this is, but that doesn't necessarily make it an encyclopedic topic." That is only half-right. We shouldn't keep any article that is based solely on what someone thinks they know, or what they think everyone knows. We expect articles to have authoritative reliable, verifiable sources. And what if we have an article that does neutrally dite good authoritative reliable, verifiable sources -- should we ever delete that article becasue someone thinks the topic is "obvious"? Nothing should be considered too "obvious" to be covered here.

• Several years ago there was a discussion over the deletion of the article on the famous phrase, "There is a sucker born every minute". Proponents of merge and deletion kept insisting the article should be deleted, or merged to PT Barnum, because it was "common knowledge" that PT Barnum coined that term. It is a weakness of common knowledge -- it is often dead wrong. This was an instance when the deletion and merge fans were dead wrong. I spent some time with google, seeing how this widely used phrase was used. I found about half the time the writers who used the phrase never mentioned PT Barnum. And I found that while about half of the articles that did mention PT Barnum unambiguously asserted PT Barnum said it, the rest of the writers who mentioned Barnum were more careful, and merely said something qualified, like, "widely attributed to PT Barnum". In my personal opinion the authors who were lazy, or careless, or unimaginative -- who simply asserted as if it were an established fact that PT Barnum coined the phrase had written weak articles that were filled with bad reasoning and other questionable assumptions.
• In this particular case I strongly suspect our nominator is wrong that everyone already knows enough about this particular phrase. I am like the girl mentioned in the article, who had never heard of the phrase before it was introduced to me through the Sex and the City episode covered in the article.
• I remind our nominator that what is "common knowledge" is culturally relative. Any brit who moves to America will experience instances when they don't know something that is considered common knowledge in the USA. That brit will find things they think is common knowledge in the UK, that yanks are ignorant of. And vice versa. There are lots of English speakers, or people who have learned English as a second language, who don't know what our nominator has asserted "everyone knows".
• I remind our nominator of what Will Rogers said about "common knowledge". He said: "It is not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It is what we know that just ain't so."
• Providing good references for things sometimes regarded as "common knowledge" is an excellent thing for an encyclopedia to do. What is "common knowledge" is mutable. What is "common knowledge" is mutable.
• I remind our nominator that many of the English wikipedia's readers are not native speakers of English. Censoring our coverage of important idiomatic phrases, our of simple prudery is a terrible disservice to our readers who are not native speakers of English.
• I remind our nominator that the wikipedia is not censored.Geo Swan (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have split feelings about this. Perhaps the depiction of the semen could be disturbing for some readers, on the other hand, the text seems to be fairly correct and objective. Because of its open nature, Wikipedia censorship is self-regulated, coming only from the community. Under this reality, we certainly take the risk of the relativism. For a religious man or woman, or ever for a father of family, who wants to protect his or her sons from this kind of sexual depiction, this could be quite negative and disgusting. For a secular man, or a rationalist, this article is a mere expression of the society itself, hence it should not be removed by moral concerns because "the good and the evil" is just "a matter of personal taste". Having said that, my personal position in this matter is that sexual depiction like this one is inadequate for our children and sensible persons. Perhaps a password-based or proof-of-age barrier can be implemented to protect children and persons concerned about pornography and indecent content in this facility. Please forgive my english, I'm from Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild tango (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per previous AfDs, comments above, etc. This may not interest all our readers but few articles do. The topic remains notable, and I easily found 600+ searchable online books and hundreds of Google Scholar Ghits so sources are certainly available. That the right editor(s) haven't already written this into a good article is not a reason for deletion. There really isn't one IMHO. And the image has been wikibattled over already many times resulting in keeping it. Images are used on Wikipedia because they have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. An image helps illustrate a subject more efficiently than any amount of words could. Images should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, images should be used in a similar spirit. Wikipedia is not censored and previous discussions have supported that the current image isn't pornographic and is pretty much what one would expect in a photograph of this activity. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. It is placed where the lede image is placed at the top of the article. Efforts to move or otherwise mask this image have been rejected by the community although individual users can modify their own web browsers to mask images that they wish. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. -- Banjeboi 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I already commented in the last AfD. I said how the expression appeared in a university press book in a study about prostitutes in New Zealand. I also pointed at a source saying that its appeareance in "sex and the city" had made the expression reach mainstream sex. The google books search above contains lots of false positives, so I'll point directly to a few more books:

• appearance at a novel from Cynthia Heimel [1]
• listed in a reference guide for pornography[2] (the author is Joseph W. Slade, I'm not sure if he is famous but he published another book on pornography on John Hopkins University Press [3], the book itself was reviewed very favorably in the Journal of Sex Research [4] "Slade's work is a major contribution to the study of pornography, and it marks the arrival of pornography studies as a legitimate field of scholarship.").
• appearing in the quoted testimonial of a female teen, in a chapter about how teens learn sex from TV from series like sex and the city, in a book that divulgues what teens really think about sex, written by journalist Sabrina Weill [5]
• Wendy Chapkis, Professor of Women & Gender Studies and Sociology in University of Southern Maine[6] lists it as one of the safe sex techniques used by prostitutes around the world[7].

A few more source can most probably be found. It would be very strange if wikipedia didn't have an article on this expression. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Only arguments for deletion are Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Banjeboi found plenty of books mentioning this. Keep next year, and the year after that too, since anything that's been nominated four times already, is sure to keep getting nominated. Dream Focus 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep notable, has sources, and as mentioned the only argument against seems to be that it is of an objectionable topic. And as this is the 4th try at deleting can we put some sort of block on it being nominated again in the future? Surely the first two tries were enough.Camelbinky (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is not censored. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or (2nd choice) Merge to facial (sex act) or mammary intercourse, but do not delete. I'm not convinced that a whole lot more can be said about this topic, but I could be wrong. There are certainly some reliable sources out there, so it may be expanded, but at any rate there's enough there in my opinion to justify an article and to demonstrate it's more than a dictionary definition. It presumably can be independent of either facial (sex act) or mammary intercourse, so it'd be better in it's own article than merged. The picture is something that I don't want to look at every day, and would not want children to see, BUT it certainly is helpful to the reader in understanding the topic, and Wikipedia is not censored. If the nominator has serious concerns that the subject of the photo is under age, this isn't the place to bring them.--BelovedFreak 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere to Facial (sex act). I don't think the nom is all that convincing. My own reasoning, though, is that this article is little more than a WP:DICDEF. If there were some significant expansion that showed the historical significance of this particular act, or something, that'd be different. As it stands there's just not enough here to warrant a separate article. As for those saying the article could be expanded, I say in the meantime it should be merged until the content is expanded thusly. It can always be split off again once there's adequate material to warrant a separate article. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:53, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

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.