Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handjob[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The section concerning sex work in massage parlors seems far more suitable to an article about sex workers and the sex industry. I would clean it up and merge it somewhere with related information.

If you removed that second section about sex work, it would simply be offering a definition of Handjob. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary that isn't really what constitutes an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasphetamine (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note This nomination/rationale was originally placed at Talk:Handjob#AfD Reasoning, I have moved it here to the proper location. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Non-penetrative sex#Exclusively non-penetrative after merging anything related to "happy endings" into appropriate articles (erotic massage, prostitution, etc). As the nominator said, once the (largely irrelevant) information about sex work and massages is removed, this is little more than the definition found at the non-penetrative sex page. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Simon and Shuster published a book devoted to the topic, the Handjob Handbook. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this isn't a matter of improving it if we keep it. It is an issue of writing an entire article. I'm not sure one book being published on handjobs means we should keep a page that is, at present, just a basic definition for the word.Jasphetamine (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book called Sex: An Uncensored Introduction that discusses handjobs seriously. The topic is notable, so keeping and improving is a better option than deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only thought with that reference is that it (again) doesn't give much more than a definition and a "how to", which Wikipedia is not. Primefac (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT, a Wikipedia article should not be written as a "how to guide", Primefac. That does not mean that a reliable source establishing the notability of a topic cannot be written as a how to guide. If Julia Child wrote about a certain classic dish of French cuisine, then that helps establish the notability of that dish, even if she is writing a detailed guide about how to prepare the dish. Similarly, significant descriptions in reliable sources about various ways to perform a handjob, including a complete book by a major publisher, help establish the notability of that sex act. It is just that the Wikipedia article itself should not be written in that style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, I take back my earlier comment. I still don't see how this page will become any more than a dictionary definition, though. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I first voted for redirect but then I noticed the other sex acts with their own articles in the linked target article of redirection. Sometimes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument and here it showcases policy. We've got a massive article for Tribadism and an article for Nipple stimulation as well... Footjob is also represented. The current Handjob article needs to be improved but as always that has nothing to do with its AfD worthiness — as in its worthiness as a subject matter of an article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I won't reiterate the arguments of the above editors who !voted keep, but I do agree with them. Passes WP:GNG. I also agree that the article needs work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a more appropriate article, preferably of a more scientific nature, about assisted masturbation. -O.R.^Comms 05:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Terrible article, notable topic, per Cullen above. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - The article does need a few more hands working on it but overall the article is certainly notable (Sorry I couldn't resist the shitty pun!). –Davey2010^Talk 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.