Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot wife
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was merge and redirect to Swinging. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be little more than a dicdef. I recommend delete unless notability can be established. --Alan Au 01:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing recommendation to speedy redirect. --Alan Au 01:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did anyone happen to catch the contributor's name? Oy vey. - Lucky 6.9 01:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- I am trying to write articles on the sexual swinging lifestyle, which millions of people in the world subscribe to. If you believe this has no relevancy in Wikipedia then delete and I will stop contributing. --Swinger1
- Millions of people around the world subscribe to it; I don't think it's particularly prevalent in the U.S. Devotchka 01:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you ever look at the internet outside of wikipedia?!—Gaff ταλκ 03:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear. Sorry, I meant that it isn't more prevalent in the US than anywhere else. Devotchka 23:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you ever look at the internet outside of wikipedia?!—Gaff ταλκ 03:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have no idea whether it's a specialized "swinging" term but it certainly doesn't deserve its own entry. Throw it on the swinging page if anything. Devotchka 01:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to let people who are experts in particular areas contribute articles. To most people swinging might be just dancing but you can't ignore millions of people who are looking for specific sexual terms like "hot wife" and "slut wife". If anything, a person that knows the subject should be the judge and not a person who specializes in other areas or whose knowledge of the matter is slim --Swinger1
- You're more than welcome to write more on the "hot wife" article if there's more to it than a simple definition. Definitions don't get their own entries here; they go to the Wiktionary. You could consider putting it in as a section on the swinging page, specialized "swinging" terms and whatnot. Devotchka 01:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to let people who are experts in particular areas contribute articles. To most people swinging might be just dancing but you can't ignore millions of people who are looking for specific sexual terms like "hot wife" and "slut wife". If anything, a person that knows the subject should be the judge and not a person who specializes in other areas or whose knowledge of the matter is slim --Swinger1
- In that case, please accept my sincerest apology for assuming that you were trolling. That was the basis of my comment. Changing vote to abstain. - Lucky 6.9 01:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no problem if you would like to roll this content into a larger article about Swinging or Swingers. However, I'm not sure that this particular term is worthy of a separate article. --Alan Au 01:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Swinging, same as Hotwife does. The AfD discussion for that page is at Talk:Hotwife. Pilatus 01:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swinging Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)On second thoughts merge with cuckhold and redirect all other spelling varioations there too. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- one person's dicdef 66.25.38.14 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect would be good. Devotchka 01:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add my last comments on the matter. Ask yourself this question. If you were in charge of a public library, would you ban books that you think might not interest people? probably not. Swinging is a sizable subculture, to throw it all in one single page would be unfair to the whole concept of Wikipedia in the first place. This should be the perfect place to share specialized information not selective information --Swinger1
- I'd very quickly ban a book if the only thing in it was a paragraph-long definition for one term. Nobody is trying to ban your subculture. We're all aware that it's huge. These rules on definitions and everything apply to every subject and not just particularly controversial ones. Devotchka 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How and why would you ban a book that has not been even written? the article is up for deletion because some people think the term is not worthy of an article or public interest. The problem, with that is that the ones judging don't know enough about the matter in the first place. It would be like me giving opinions on articles about rocket science or gardening. People are proposing to lump everything in swinging which in itself is a whole article. How are people going to find out what is what with policies like these? Wikipedia should be place to expand specialized knowledge.
- I'd very quickly ban a book if the only thing in it was a paragraph-long definition for one term. Nobody is trying to ban your subculture. We're all aware that it's huge. These rules on definitions and everything apply to every subject and not just particularly controversial ones. Devotchka 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add my last comments on the matter. Ask yourself this question. If you were in charge of a public library, would you ban books that you think might not interest people? probably not. Swinging is a sizable subculture, to throw it all in one single page would be unfair to the whole concept of Wikipedia in the first place. This should be the perfect place to share specialized information not selective information --Swinger1
--Swinger1
- If the contents are merged with another article, and that part of the other article later becomes too big, then the page can be recreated. At the momemt there is nothing like enough material to merit an article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -- Pilatus presents a good argument. -- 69.232.187.204 02:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I have to apologize to users and contributors for the typical editorial policy here, which is to redirect terms like hotwife to pages which don't even mention them, like swinging. Kappa 03:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Hot wife with Cuckold (or at least Swinging) --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or redirect to my user page ;-D). BD2412 talk 03:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Hot wife and Hotwife both and have one be a redirect.—Gaff ταλκ 03:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Swinging and redirect per Anetode and Pilatus. --Metropolitan90 03:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Swinging. Ditto for above vote. Dante (Δαντε) 04:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. If it will help to form consensus, I would also support a merge to swinging. Jacqui ★ 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 12:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per Metro Nil Einne 14:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Metro. This isn't an issue of censorship, etc., but rather having a coherent article. - Sensor 15:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:23, 30 October 2005 (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.