Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gape shot

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 delete. --bainer (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gape shot

This article is merely a dictonary definition with some related slang definitions and a list of "Movies containing this fetish" and a See also link to Goatse.cx. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of loosely related information, nor a mere collection of links, otherwise nearly any word at all could be added as an article that simply had its definition, some synonyms, and a list of where it can be found in a bunch of books and movies. This article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and not because of the pornography of its content. The article was prodded when it did not contain the list of Movies or the See also link, after which it received support from Starionwolf and was then deleted by Pascal666, who added the list and link. I have notified both of these users on their Talk pages. —Centrx→Talk 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The user that most recently vandalized this article also vandalized another, which brought them to my attention and caused me to revert their vandalism to this article, reverting the prod at the same time. Both list and link were previously in the article. --Pascal666 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or move to wikitionary if you must. It is real, but with only 60 unique Google hits, it's beyond niche. And the list doesn't help its case. I don't see why a list of porn films containg fellatio would make that topic more or less fit for the site. --djrobgordon 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're searching for the wrong term. As the article says the most popular term is "anal gaping". With 173,000 hits this appears to be quite popular. The articles that actually link inline to this article also use that context. --Pascal666 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. From the history it appears to be a long standing article with many editors and as such should probably be kept with the understanding that it is a stub and should continue to be expanded upon. --Pascal666 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• The only substantial edits to the body since October, 2005 have been adding 'more popularly called "Anal Gaping"' and 'sometimes combined with the internal cumshot' (which are hardly substantial). Most all of the movies were added by a single user whose only edits were this page. Most of the other edits are people adding and deleting external links to pornographic websites, with numerous petty vandalisms thrown in. —Centrx→talk 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Porncruft - delete unless someone can come up with a reliable source for this term. If a reliable source exists for this sort of thing, I'd actually really like to see it. Until then, I'll stick with: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always agreed that as long as you can stick the -cruft suffix on something it should be deleted. Endoplasmic reticulum, pure biologycruft. Theodoric the Great, unabashed historycruft. Let's start deleting! Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet, you're not arguing we should keep this article... -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per djrobgordon, but allow passing mention in a porn-related article; Google results indicate this is indeed a (rarely used) porn term. Sandstein 05:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this please. Scented Guano 06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Term doesn't merit its own page. GassyGuy 09:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with a side order of Ewwwwww. Dictionary definition for nn phrase. Could be placed into another article and redirected, though. Vizjim 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously, although have a look through the funny titles first, which include "The Gapes of Wrath", "Planet of the Gapes", "The Gape of Nanking" and of course the beloved epic "What's Eating Gilbert Gape (Staring Gaperham Lincolon)". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Ted 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Could easily be covered in another porn related terminology article. StuffOfInterest 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep probably would be useful to link to from porno articles. I bet a reliable source could be found it someone took the time. The list should go. Another solution could be merging it into another article (if there is something like it). Not my "area" of expertise! Royalbroil 19:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  If somebody takes the time to find a reliable source, I'll agree it should be kept, but unless that's forthcoming, we're just keeping unverified stuff around, and if someone comes up with a source later, they can recreate the article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, so few google hits, and the fact that it's porn even further shows the scarcity of the word. AdamBiswanger1 04:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or at most transwiki. LotLE×talk 07:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The term is in wide use and notable. At least, it seems to be widely used in porn reviews at Adult DVD Talk and Porn Living, but dictdef is a valid concern. I think it just edges into having enough content to be a bit more, though. Ace of Sevens 15:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Have you got a reliable source? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Mainly my own memory, but a google search turned up plenty of uses other than this page and its mirrors. Examples here (include porn, of course) http://www.1by-day.com/modeldetails.php?62 http://www.adultdvdtalk.com/reviews/read_review.asp?sku=4967&xxx-road-trip-3.htm http://www.raincoatreviews.com/savr0076.shtml Ace of Sevens 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I should have linked the words reliable source. The sources you're citing wouldn't make this article different from original research, as far as I can tell. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They seem to be substantial enough to prove the term is in use in the porn world. If we're looking for a history of the term or something, that would be harder. Ace of Sevens 17:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I agree they prove the term is in use, but I don't think that was really disputed. That doesn't make it not original research, as far as I can tell. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• OMMFG KEEP, dude, seriously! This is such an important shot in modern porn! Brjatlick 02:29, 20 June 2006 (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.