Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lotion-Play

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. Majorly 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lotion-Play

Lotion-Play (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Disputed prod. Neologism, no reliable sources, largely unverifiable. Richmeister_talk 15:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment see talk page for discussion- the links there and on the page confirms this exists, its a question of whether they are considered reliable sources or not (note lotion play is well known in the wet and messy fetish community) Urso 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Top ghits are Wikipedia followed by "Hand Lotion Play Dough" from parenting websites. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment its a literal translation of the japanese term, as the article says its a japanese form of erotica, try googling with the japanese term Urso 17:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. I'm not doubting its existence, but it needs to have been mentioned by reliable independent sources to be considered notable. It could be merged if a suitable target is found. Trebor 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Soapland, which primarily describes the context rather than the act itself, and is referenced. This article appears to be accurate but does need sourcing. Georgewilliamherbert 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Doczilla 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Another fetish article which lacks any independent reliable and verifiable sources, so it must go on the basis that "Wikipedia is not for things made up in a pool of lotion one day." Edison 15:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I resent the implication that I made this up. I fully accept that the article doesn't have the necessary independent sources (which would be in japanese anyway) and so will presumably be deleted, but the phenomenon does exist and I wrote the article in good faith Urso 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a neologism so those !votes shouldn't count for anything. Trebor 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Neologism" means new word, term newly utilized in its given sense, or new term for the amount of use. Maybe someone's family used it for seventy years before the rest of the world learned it. Calling it a neologism doesn't have to mean you personally made it up. Doczilla 06:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Contingent Keep. Searching under the Japanese name, "ローションプレイ" gives 169,000. So there should be cites available out there, and it should be possible to bring the article up to WP:V. Instead of translating the title, it's probably best to tranliterate it instead, which will probably turn up more English sources. Can anybody here transliterate Japanese? — coelacan talk — 07:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There're a couple of transliterations, but "r[o/oo/ou][sh/shy]on purei" -- the katakana are directly representative of the English words "lotion play". Might find something using "l" instead of "r", too. Shimeru 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge — to Soapland per George, I'd accept it deing deleted as well over notability rather than WP:NEO. Wizardman 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wet and messy fetishism --Joffeloff 01:37, 15 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.