Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pussing

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 delete. Proto::type 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pussing

Delete Non-notable neologism made up by the author. Prod removed without comment Gwernol

KeepKevin says - please do not delete this. It is a perfectly legitimate activity and I included the origin of the word to help explain its background. I have removed the specific link to an external website but this was to a non-profit making site anyway, not a commercial enterprise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinbeds (talk • contribs).

• Keep. 111,000 hits on Google, an Urban Dictionary entry, and a few website... that I won't link to. tmopkisn ^tlka 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. If the article is kept, any references to Kevin Sims need to be verified or removed. There are thousands of references to this word on the web; none mention him. Fan-1967 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as neologism. Well over half the Google hits are not in English anyway, and most of those which are are not using the word in this context (e.g. as a made-up verb meaning 'emitting pus', or 'refusing to participate because of fear'). It is in some marginal use in this context, but.. -- Mithent 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef of a WP:NEO, per nom. Nothing said here isn't said in Urolagnia, except for the suspiciously repetitive namechecking of some unknown and uncited "inventor" of the term. --DaveG12345 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mithent and DaveG. -- Kicking222 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the google hits seem to have nothing to do with this sense of the word. And the adult website and the urban dictionary definition define the term identically to this article, leading me to believe that the same person wrote all three. Kevin: This isn't about questioning the legitmacy of the activity, but of the article you created. Dina 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete boredteencruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• KeepReferences to the inventor have now been removed. Whilst other references on Wikipedia refer to the general act of urophilia, here are no references to the specific act of pussing, which involves strategy and tactics to make it successful. It is more about the undetection and how this is accomplished rather than the voyeurism aspect. I have now added a section clarifying these matters in greater detail. The latest webstats are herewith to clarify the number of specific hits being generated: Figures in parentheses refer to the 7-day period ending 09-Jul-2006 05:09.

Successful requests: 6,675,641 (191,285)

Average successful requests per day: 9,512 (27,326)

Successful requests for pages: 489,349 (11,561)

Average successful requests for pages per day: 697 (1,651)Kevinbeds 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Note this ithe the user's second "vote" - each user only gets to express their opinion once. Gwernol 11:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment For all I know, you're making this up. This doesn't help your case in the slightest. Danny Lilithborne 07:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• CommentI am angered by this latter comment. The only reason I included the website statistics was because the question was raised earlier about the number of hits appearing on google. I am most certainly NOT making this up and would be pleased to e-mail you copies of the detailed statistics if you wish. Also I have no idea what boredteencruft is meant to meanKevinbeds 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It means stuff made up by bored teens, which certainly applies here. And if you want to not be accused of making stuff up, provide a link to your Google searches. Danny Lilithborne 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• CommentWell you couldn't be more wrong as I haven't been a teenager for 30 years. Here is the link you wanted to see

[1]

• • pussing.co.uk .... yeah, that will be objective. My previous comment still stands - for all I know, you're making this up, and I don't believe you were 40 years old when you made this up. Feel free to get angry if you wish. Danny Lilithborne 01:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• CommentCome on guys, please help me here. I seem to be having a personal battle with somebody who is calling me a liar and doubting my bona fides. Surely this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Why am I even having to have this battle with one individual who it appears is a total idiot? EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IS 100% TRUE and it seems that no amount of changing the text or giving demonstrable proofs will ever please this tosser. For the record I am 46, 47 next month but why I need to go into such personal information beats me. Please, somebody, help move this debate on and get this apparent wanker out of my hair. Thank you.Kevinbeds 06:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Kevin - I don't know this Danny Littleborne but he is obviously being a right pain. I always thought well of Wikipedia up to now but am beginning to wonder if this is indicative of the mentality of the people who contribute. For me, you seem to have taken on board people's comments and made appropriate revisions to the text. Don't get downhearted; the project is much bigger than one individual who seems just to want to cause trouble and bring everybody else except himself into disreputeRogerUK 07:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note First edit from brand new user. Fan-1967 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with RogerUK. The article is well written - refreshingly! - and having actually investigated the sources on the web it is clear that Wikipedia would be the poorer for not including this practice which seems to be gaining groundDierdreCoDown 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note First edit from brand new user. Fan-1967 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment First off, there's a policy against personal attacks that should be read, and questioning the validity of your evidence does not constitute a PA while I'm pretty sure calling me a "wanker" does. Secondly, it should be pointed out that the above two "Keep" votes are by new members who have no other edits, which makes me doubt the honesty of Kevinbeds even more. Danny Lilithborne 09:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Danny - so now you are calling into question others who seem sufficiently incensed by your attitude to want to add to the debate. Just what the hell is the matter with you? What do I have to do to prove everything I have said is true and why should I bother anyway given the comments of RogerUK what the whole thing is much bigger than one person. PLEASE PLEASE can somebody higher up in Wikipedia put an end to this mindless questioning from this person? Thank youKevinbeds 10:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment *As Judge Judy would put it, don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. Give us objective criteria to base the notability of the term on. You can't use the statistics of a website called "pussing". We have no way of knowing if the statistics are real or not. Again, please use objective criteria next time you want to assert the notability of your article. Danny Lilithborne 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I repeat - I ONLY PROVIDED WEB STATISTICS BECAUSE THE COMMENT MADE BY SOMEBODY ELSE CALLED THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATS INTO QUESTION. It was probably you. I had no intention whatsoever to provide website statistics, especially as the original comment about my entry was that the source was an external website, which is why I deleted all reference to it. If you can tell me what objective criteria you are looking for I WILL GLADLY PROVIDE THESE if I know how to. If you know how to, why don't you do it?Kevinbeds 10:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Mr Lilithborne, it seems that because I have chosen to add my comments to this debate and these happen to disagree with your own, you are now questioning my motives and who am am. This is surely not the way to proceed. If I choose to join Wikipedia to have the opportunity to add my voice to the content that is entirely my choice and I do not need to justify it to you. May I respectfully suggest you direct your vitriol towards those clearly self-promoting and self-advertising authors who have written so called articles which are nothing more than self-aggrandisement or seek to achieve a business marketing profile.DierdreCoDown 11:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Could I ask everyone involved in this debate to please try to remain calm and WP:CIVIL:civil? There have been inappropriate remarks thrown around by both "sides", and this debate is sinking into name calling and bitterness which helps no-one.

Kevin, the reason Google hits were brought up is that it is one way to measure the notability of a site. Because of the way Google's PageRank algorithm works it is a rough guide to the number of other sites that think your site is worthwhile. What is being (crudely) measured is how many other sites have written about your site. That's different from the number of people who visit your site, which is what the webstats show. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it reports on things that have found widespread use beyond their own narrow subject area. So, for example, if The Times had decided that Pussing was notable enough to write an article about it, then Wikipedia would cover this term with an article, using The Times article as it source.

Unfortunately I don't think "Pussing" has reached that level of notability yet. If you read Wikipedia's guideline on neologisms and especially verifiability you'll see more about this. Many thanks, Gwernol 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentThanks for your latest comment Gwernol. I understand what you say about google but when the google stats were pointed out above by Tmopkisn, these were discredited by another user. Also, the problem about pussing is that it is a secret sexual practice breaking one of the last remaining taboos (non-private urination) so it is highly unlikely that the Times would offend their readers by covering it! What I can say is that if you do a search on google for the term pussing you will see that it has reached widespread coverage as the term is included on many other sites (inevitably adult ones), particularly if the search entry is combined with another sexual term (like peeing) in order to differentiate it from the sort of definitions mentioned above by Mithent.

Comment I suggest merging the content of this article with Urolagnia. That article could use some work anyway, and this editor might be the perfect person to do it. Dina 14:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for your comment Dina. One of the problems I apparently seem to be having is explaining that Pussing is not just about Urolgnia or Urophilia, it is about employing strategy and tactics to bring two people together in a semi-public place to perform the actual act of doing and watching. There are more than enough words already for the act of urination and this is not just another one! Pussing means sitting in a bar, working out where things are, working out what can be seen where and by whom, determining who is around, making the physical move of getting a member of the wrong sex into a cubicle with a FULLY CONSENTING member of the right sex totally unobserved, staying unheard and undetected whilst in there and remaining totally unobserved on exit. This is not what Urolgnia or Urophilia is!!Kevinbeds 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Urolagnia is defined as : (also known as urophilia) a sexual fetish with a focus on urine and urination. While there are variants to any fetish, Pussing seems to fall well within the scope of that article on the subject. Look, it's very likely that your article is going to be deleted. If it's important to you that this subject be represented on Wikipedia, why not incorporate some of the content in your article into that existing one? If you feel the Urolagnia isn't well written, you can edit its content as well. That way, everyone can be satisfied. Dina 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK Dina I have done that. I just hope it doesn't start off another torrent of abuseKevinbeds 16:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentWell, you'll probably get edited, but hopefully not abused. Thanks for helping sort this out peacefully. Dina 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to be unverified original research. (WP:OR, WP:V) It also contains a lot of how-to advice, which is also not in wikipedia's scope (WP:NOT) - Wickning1 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentI tried expressly to steer clear of how to advice, instead keeping it to the facts of what actually happens. But because this involves strategy and tactics it is necessary to explain what those are!Kevinbeds 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable, doesn't cite any sources, probably a neologism. The Ungovernable Force 08:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I keep trying to cite sources but these all seem to be poo-pooed on here! You must understand that the term relates to a secret sexual activity involving a taboo so all the sources are adult website related!! One is hardly likely to read about this activity in the pages of The Times!!Kevinbeds

Comment This word should be kept as it describes the activity without being to vulgar. I mean come on, it isn't a swear word so why should it be deleated? Wake up people, it is only a word after all, one of countless number of words that are floating around on the net and in books and dictionarys. [User:reedgj6052|--Reedgj6052 09:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reedgj6052]]

• • Note First edit from brand new user.Fan-1967 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Maybe Wikipedia should record the ISP Addresses from which the entries originate so it can be confident these are not from the same person, which is the inference here. I do NOT know who Reedgj6052 is and was delighted that his (or her) comment appeared in my favour out of the blue. There does seem to be a certain degree of paranoia here!!!Kevinbeds 14:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is normal practice in these discussions to make note of new users. It's not an accusation, but it is something to be aware of. IP addresses really wouldn't help, as it is not uncommon for users to ask a friend to post on their behalf. Fan-1967 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Interesting! It may also, of course, be the case that somebody viewing the pages feels sufficiently strongly to want to join for the first time in order to add their view to the debate! Such participation is hopefully considered healthy!86.129.234.176 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC). Sorry - forgot I wasn't logged in - this one is from me!!!Kevinbeds

• Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I fail to see how you can say it is unverifiable when it is included as a term in so many different websites, all independent of each other. Further, it is not non-notable as people are actually doing this, otherwise nobody would bother to include it as a search term in their websites!!Kevinbeds 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Can you link me to any three such websites independent of pussing.co.uk? Ideally some that weren't set up in the last month or two. Some reliable sources would be handy too. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Non-notable neologism, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.--John Lake 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I take personal offence at the last comment. (1) THIS IS NOT MADE UP - people actively do this (2) The prime Pussing website has been in existence SINCE EARLY 2004 (3) This is an ADULT activity performed by ADULTS - any reference to school is both insulting and bordering on the dangerous. WIKIPEDIA MEDIATION CABAL PLEASE NOTEKevinbeds 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this protologism as it represents several sorts of WP:NOT (a how-to, for made up stuff, a dictionary). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just how many times do I have to say it - THIS IS NOT MADE UP. It is a recognised practice which actually happens! Also, it is NOT a how-to, in explaining pussing it is necessary to describe the strategy and tactics involved: that is what it is all about. Thirdly it is NOT an attempt at a dictionary definition - this has been dealt with in WiktionaryKevinbeds 06:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Can you please provide some reliable sources to show that this is not made up? Shouting about it is not going to help your case. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment I am NOT shouting about it but I am getting extremely frustrated that you chaps are being so obstreperous and doubting. You must understand that this is a sexual practice carried out in secret between consenting couples. It is NOT the sort of thing that you are going to find articles about or references to in The Times or the Hare and Hounds etc etc and it is NOT the sort of thing that people themselves are going to shout abroad that they indulge in, any more than the people who have commented on here would tell me what they get up to in their private sex lives (if they have any, which I am seriously beginning to doubt!). This is why you will find the term primarily amongst the adult community. Adult websites, for example, would not be including the word pussing in their search terms if pussing did not exist. The fact that it is related to the adult community does not in any way mean it is not widespread but this wonderfully polite society of ours means it is just not the sort of activity which people openly talk about. They are even less likely to write the term down. I had expected Wikipedia to want to embrace exciting new developments in our language, society and culture and want to be a leader in information but all I have encountered here has been hidebound and reactionary: a great disappointment.Kevinbeds 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, regardless of whether this is made up, this is a definition/how-to article. If the definition has already been added to Wiktionary then this article contains no relevant information. --Cornflake pirate 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment The definition added to Wiktionary, which even there has been questioned, is 1. a one liner about what it is 2. the etymology and 3. how it is pronounced. It does not explain, as this brief article tries to do, its origin and link with other activity and the practical aspects of what is involved. It is one thing for a dictionary to say A means B, but very often B needs explaining and this is what the article here tries to doKevinbeds 07:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide some reliable sources to show that this is not made up? Shouting louder and louder that it exists is not convincing anyone. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, you are stepping out of line. Comments like "if they have any, which I am seriously beginning to doubt" are offensive personal attacks and if you continue to make them you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I ask you again to remain calm and civil.

It is very important that you understand that verifiability is an absolute, inviolable cornerstone of Wikipedia. Quoting from that policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You have not provided any reliable sources for the activity of Pussing. Until you do, the article will likely be deleted. Please read the verifiability policy carefully. Note in particular the simple idea that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Until your article reaches this threshold none of the other arguments matter.

You may find this unfair, but it is the definition of what an encyclopedia is. There are thousands of free and low costs web hosting companies where you can write an article on Pussing if you want to. Thanks, Gwernol 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 1. You have overlooked the exclamation mark at the end of my parenthesis about other people's sexual activity. Have you never heard of humour? 2. It cannot be expected that reputable sources, as you call them, are likely to publish articles about a secret sexual activity breaking a taboo. If they did, their reputation would be called into question. 3. I did add what I considered to be a reputable internet source to the original article but the very first complaint was that this was an adult website, which is why I removed it, even though the website is non-commercial and non-profit making. 3. I have never asked anybody commenting to supply a source so I don't see the relevance of your point 3. 4. I do not want to write an article on pussing; what I was expecting is that Wikipedia would embrace developments in language, society and culture and be a pre-eminent reference source for such developments. I was clearly in error and, to be frank, now have an extremely poor opinion of Wikipedia. 5. I am not shouting louder and louder; I am simply trying to respond accurately to each point which is made. If you want proof that it exists, just search for it on the internet. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be on so many independent webhsites. Or, to put it another way, why would websites seeking traffic in a highly competitive environment include pussing as a search term if nobody knew or did this? You talk about verifiability, not truth, but you yourself seem to be doubting the truthKevinbeds 07:31, 14 July 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.