Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Venus Butterfly

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 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Venus Butterfly

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Even if it's something you and your wife really like to do together. At the very least, this is original research. :-) Unverified, too. eaolson 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per the rewrite. eaolson 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but most of the information presented here is original research in the sense that is it gathered from personal experience, research and experimentation. Do a google on "venus butterfly" - I'd expect Wikipedia to have something on the subject.

That is what my posting was - the results of vast research and experimation on the subject. My wife can verify the results - reluctantly, though. Do what you think is best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedalen (talk • contribs)

• Delete per all three reasons in nom. It might merit a mention at cunnilingus, but how to determine notability of a particular one...? Failing that, just delete.--Kchase T 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten by Canadian Caesar. Well done. Now I don't think it should be placed in the cunnilingus section of the oral sex article, as a long description of a specific technique would look out of place there. Perhaps as a "see also" in the article.--Kchase T 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — as per nom Betacommand 05:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep or Merge to cunnilingus (nice rewrite). Not sure it marrets it own article would suggest the merge Betacommand 02:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete sexcruft. It's also written terribly. Wikipedia has a wife now? Danny Lilithborne 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Keep per CanadianCaesar's nifty rewrite. Danny Lilithborne 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as (bad) OR. If this were a better article, it might merit mention in cunnilingus, but certainly not as it stands. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The technique can be traced back to books by 'Anonymous' and so it is not original, but delete for all inclusiveness. Ohconfucius 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• The technique is certainly not OR, but oi, that awful essay....-- H·G (^words/_works) 07:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I rewrote it. I think the article now establishes notability, referenced to Canada's top sex expert as well as films such as Meet the Fockers. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect (vote change) following CanadianCaesar's rewrite. Works well as a blurb in cunnilingus; generally speaking, the only way I could see it continuing as a stand-alone article would be if more detail were added, but that's certainly not necessary for this topic. Still, not opposed to keeping it if this is deemed prudent. -- H·G (^words/_works) 09:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the author wrote a book, likely inventing the term and the act, the book but not the term got a mention in a movie and a magazine, and there is no indication that it is a sexual practice in the real world. -- Kjkolb 10:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How about the reference to Canada's top sex expert? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The reference where she says that she heard it on a 1970s soap opera? That's highly doubtful given the morality at the time, and a soap opera is not what I would consider a reliable source. If the term existed before the book, I suspect that it was an obscure slang term with various meanings. Finally, as I said before, there is no indication that it is a sexual practice in the real world (similar to donkey punch). I am not sure what would qualify as her as Canada's top sex expert. The only education given in the article is nursing. I would expect that Canada's top sex expert would be a physician (or at least a PhD) with additional training and possibly degrees in human sexuality, urology and obstectrics. -- Kjkolb 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I suspect people would take her advice and try the technique- if she hadn't tried it herself. The book itself is good evidence that some people have tried this in the real world- a book dedicated to teaching it to people. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to L.A. Law. See my comment on Talk:Venus Butterfly. If, as I believe, this is a widespread piece of sexual folklore that originated in a TV show, and does not describe any one technique, then it doesn't really belong as a paragraph in cunnilingus. Merge and redirect to the TV show it came from, or keep for now if the origin is insufficiently established. --Celithemis 10:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --TheM62Manchester 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That no longer applies. There are sources, now. Someone wrote an entire book on this.--Kchase T 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is unencyclopedic and would be better transwiki'd. --TheM62Manchester 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Unencyclopedic how? Because it's about cunnilingus? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep An interesting article. --Guinnog 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the rewrite. Yanksox 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and boldly edit. As far as I can tell, the thing is an Imaginary sexual Practice invented for L.A. Law. And even in the series its particulars are left undescribed. I don't know if some writers have baptized something by that name since, that is false and irrelevant. --Svartalf 02:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article as rewritten by Canadian Caesar. Yamaguchi先生 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because of rewrite. --Gray Porpoise 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though I'd move the "L.A. Law" reference up to the top paragraph. To my knowledge, that was where the term was first invented, and everything after that was a struggle to try and come up with a definition for something that had been deliberately left undefined in fiction. It's definitely a notable term though. --Elonka 23:05, 11 August 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.