Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trainfuck: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:28, 10 August 2009

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

Neologism already covered at List of sex positions and Group sex. Stand-alone article is unnecessary duplication, and I'd further argue that the title is not the most common name for the act. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a wonderful blog piece and inspiring in its novel synthesis but we are lacking actual encyclopedic content that supports a stand alone article. Absent a stubbifying process that removes all the original research and replaces it with reliable sourcing to demonstrate the need for a stand alone article I think this has to be deleted. A protected redirect to group sex may encourage the creator to build a reliably sourced and non-original research version in their userspace instead. -- Banjeboi 07:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of activity is already covered in group sex in the "daisy chain" section, which is a much more common name for this. Not enough to write to merit a separate article on the subject, and if there were, it should not be under a neologistic title. Every few years teenagers think they have invented some clever sex act, without understanding that they already exist under established names; these don't all need separate articles. Protected redirect would be fine too, if anyone finds a reliable source showing the term has any popularity.Yob Mod 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as the case may be... neologism. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to group sex, where the act is mentioned and clarified. Well-written article, but weak topic. McMarcoP (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Delete''' This type of activity is already covered in [[group sex]] in the "daisy chain" section, which is a much more common name for this. Not enough to write to merit a separate article on the subject, and if there were, it should not be under a neologistic title. Every few years teenagers think they have invented some clever sex act, without understanding that they already exist under established names; these don't all need separate articles. Protected redirect would be fine too, if anyone finds a reliable source showing the term has any popularity.[[User:Yobmod|<b><font color="#0000CD">Yob</font></b>]][[User talk:Yobmod|<b><font color="CC3399 ">Mod</font></b>]] 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Merge''' or '''redirect''' as the case may be... neologism.  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]], [[Special:Log/Merovingian|L]]) 07:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Redirect''' to [[group sex]], where the act is mentioned and clarified. Well-written article, but weak topic. [[User:McMarcoP|McMarcoP]] ([[User talk:McMarcoP|talk]]) 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)