Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House humping

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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] House humping

Content does not appear in a reputable published source, thus does not meet guidelines in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Czyl 18:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, standards of verifiability should apply to sexual practices. Although, this one is mentioned on a few blogs, which makes it much more verifiable than "cleaning the spoon" and "bagging the bunny", which apparently had no source other than the writer. -- Kjkolb 05:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, interesting but not encyclopedic. --TantalumTelluride 05:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Bar hopping has the right to exist, than so does this. Fortunately, Bar hopping doesn't exist. Yet.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the term may be unverifiable, the phenomenon certainly is well-known (at least, i had heard of it before). Thus, keep and maybe move later if an alternative term is found. And WTF is BJAODN? The Minister of War 09:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • WP:BJAODN is "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense" - Wikipedia's museum of the terminally strange and bizarre edits which have been condemned to an early exit from articlespace. Grutness...wha? 12:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing on Google but some blogs and some Wikipedia mirrors. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The phenomenon is only well-known because it was an element of the storyline of one episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Neither the article, the external links, nor a search reveals any evidence of the phenomenon existing in the real world outside of that story, or any secondary sources dealing with it (as either fiction or fact). Original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm the original poster (laptop just crashed, that's why I signed on as new today BTW), and yes, I'm new to Wiki (which is great, IMHO!) but I just posted several more links to references to house humping and related context. I'm a member of the Yahoo group, and yes, I know this is a true phenomenon (just ask my fiance). In England, maybe you have Cottaging for gay folks, but that's no stranger a fetish than house humping, which seems to be primarily hetero, but not exclusively. I understand that the term itself is new, but based on our user group messages and other correspondence, this has been going on since the beginning of the hot real estate market about 5 years ago. Someone in our group said there's a movie that had a scene about it, but they called it "sexy swiping" which I think involves sex and stealing, so that's slightly different. Frankly, the CSI reference was new to me, but that only proves the point. Not sure how else to prove it to you unless you have an open house and invite us over. --St germain23 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:V and WP:NOR seem relevant to me. -- SCZenz 02:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I originally nominated for deletion. I certainly believe that people may be doing this, but the requirements in WP:V and WP:NOR seem to apply. Without outside verification, we can't know if it's a thirty-person fad, or something destined to go the way of toothing. Perhaps the author could, as WP:NOR suggests, attempt to interest a media source in publishing a story on the topic before introducing this article? It's nicely written.Czyl 08:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, points well taken and respected. Not sure if this counts as verifiability, but just last night, CNBC's evening news had a whole piece about that movie - I guess the name is Open House - and how one of the plot elements is people having sex in open houses. the reporter mentioned either house hunting, or house humping - it was hard to make out which. In any case, it verifies the phenomenon if not the terminology itself. I tracked down the film's page and they've got the clip up from CNBC. As the kids say, 'are we there yet?' --St germain23 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • St germain23, you should only vote once (bolding keep or delete is usually seen as a vote), but you can add a comment if you want to add information to the discussion. -- Kjkolb 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • comment Sorry about that - like I said, I'm new to the Wiki world, and it seemed like Czyl had indicated his deletion vote twice (nominating and posting), but maybe that's OK, I don't know. And what about this CNBC piece? Last I checked it was about as MSM as you can get. --St germain23 12:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete echoing above arguments for removal. Dottore So 11:56, 29 October 2005 (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.