Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball metaphors for sex

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 John254 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball metaphors for sex

Baseball metaphors for sex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is about neologisms. WP:NEO states that, for all articles about neologisms, all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. This article contains no references whatsoever and indication on the talk page is that authors feel articles about colloquiallism do not need to be cited. Therefore, and "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", this article must be deleted per WP:NEO and any pertinent content that could be cited that uses but is not about the article's colloquialisms placed into Human sexual behavior. CyberAnth 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep see no reason to have this deleted.--Borgarde 09:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Discussion Rationale is sound, however, perhaps we should allow the ariticle more time to generate cites. Seems like a good article. Recommend Keep Navou ^talk 09:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment about potential for refs - No major database at my major University produces articles about the metaphor. Google scholar produces nothing. Google produces nothing but articles (e.g.,this one from the Washington Post) in which the metaphors are used as colloquialisms. No source is about the neologisms as such. CyberAnth 09:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. See no reason why this article should be deleted. Baseball metaphors for sex are an important part of English language culture in North America and Wikipedia needs an article on that. Canjth 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because the nomination cites an invalid reason, i.e., that this is an article about a neologism (which it isn't). Tarinth 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is not a neologism and therefore WP:NEO does not apply here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Absolutely, this is a part of the American culture, and clearly notable. Moscatanix 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  "First base", "Second base", "Third base", "Home run" - what these represent in the article are neologisms. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term"..."even though there may be many examples of the term in use". All of the cited references in the article merely use the terms as colloquialisms. That is insufficient to establish notability for its own article. Send Baseball metaphors for sex through a little test. Ask, Is there a similarly titled secondary source article or book chapter? If not, then this article must go. Wikipedia should never be the first place an article appears about a neologism or set of neologisms. That is clearly Synthesis and OR.CyberAnth 23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Keep and add back much of the removed content if it can be adequately sourced. TonyTheTiger 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - invalid nomination. Otto4711 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I heard about them in Seinfeld. :-) bogdan 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - these terms are used far too commonly and for too long a period of time to be considered neologisms. Wikipedia needs this article for completeness. Johntex\^talk 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NEO does not apply. These are not neologisms. --- RockMFR 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but the article continues to need improvement in both tone and citations to meet Wikipedia quality standards. The more recent edits have been a step in the right direction. WikkiTikkiTavi 15:32, 7 January 2007 (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.