Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stunt cock

Add links
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 was keep. The merger proposal can be discussed on the talk page. Being created by a banned user is not grounds for speedy deletion, because the article has been substantially edited since.  Sandstein  18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stunt cock[edit]

Stunt cock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Dicdef (or should I say dick def?). Two sources found but they're just dictionary entries as well. Prod and prod2 removed with "I know "Hey, I heard of it, but may be mistaken/lying" is an incredibly weak claim for me to make, but so far as I know this is a very widespread industry term." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somewhat ambivalent keep. The dictionary-def claim is a legitimate complaint, moreso than the initial assertion of non-notability (which I think is very easily contested). However, I believe this article has the potential to do more than just define the term. For instance, the role of the, well, role, in the industry is ripe for exploration. Of course, that hinges on finding reliable material that discusses it, which probably exists. But I'm not necessarily dead certain I'll be able to find it. But in a nutshell, I think that this particular function is prominent enough within the pornography industry that it will be possible to evaluate it more richly than simply providing its bare-bones definition. - Vianello (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nutshell. Dick-def. You just can't stop, can you? (Like I can complain. It still got a snort-giggle out of me both times.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vianello (talk • contribs)
  • Response. This may just be a sign I've had way too much contact with pornography, but if this isn't the term for the extremely common practice of employing stand-in genitalia, then what is? Again, the dic(*cough*)-def issue is a potential concern, but this is the most commonly accepted term for a wide-spread, well-known practice. I'm not sure how one could call it non-notable. - Vianello (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to be a notable term backed by several reliable sources. Of course, we're not a dictionary; but this article isn't simply a dictionary definition. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability established. Mere existence as a slang term (which, judging by other similar entries in Google Book search is pretty liberal in listing slang most people never heard of) does not mean the topic itself is notable. Note also that the sources do not establish any sort of notability... only ones are a couple of slang dictionaries, a book ceated by a well known vanity press (AuthorHouse) and some sources that merely confirm that some actors were stand ins but not that it's an important or notable term or even practice. At best it's a brief mention in some article about porn films. DreamGuy (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I suppose one could go and catalogue every one of the plethora of its uses by industry figures and professionals, but that would be overkill, so I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for here. Exactly how many times would you have to be pointed to the term being used before you'd call it "notable"? - Vianello (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would like some reliable sources to the terms widespread use. But even then, it might be better off for Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response/question. A reliable source that specifically says, "this is a widely used term" (not not strictly in so many words), then? Fair enough, that. I'll poke around and see what I can find that's perhaps a bit more exact. While I think its commonality is kind of self-evident in some ways, looking at all the people and groups and web pages and movies etc. that have used it, it may only seem that way to me. If I find something, I'll reference it and mention it here. If you don't hear a further peep out of me, you can assume I haven't succeeded, or that I got distracted snickering immaturely at the toilet humor in this discussion again. - Vianello (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written, and copiously sourced. I don't see what the problem is, frankly. AndreaTrue77 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrea. The article is well-sourced and the topic, although not one that would be found in, say, the World Book, is encyclopedic. I'll refrain from the variety of jokes that could be made about this page. Mandsford (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously there won't be many (if any) textual references for this term, but as an insider I can vouch for its widespread usage within the industry. It's simply not the kind of thing you write down in a diary or memory, and I can't think of any formal publication where its usage would be mandated nor appropriate. It's not so much a job title as it is an interchangeable role or nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.165.113 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/note. I originally made this edit to the page under "popular culture", but it probably pertains more to this debate than the future content of the page, so I will repost it here for consideration in line with the claims that the term is not notable:
"*Several businesses have adopted "Stunt Cock" into their names, as a pun or in its conventional sense. These include a t-shirt company and a racing apparel company."
This bit of text is not really article-worthy, but another demonstration of the fact that this isn't just something made up one day or otherwise under-the-radar. - Vianello (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be adequate sources. We cover these sort of topics even though the refs can sometimes be a little unusual. Most terms entered in Wikipedia have no source specifically saying "widespread use". DGG (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into body double. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Body Double in a new section on "body parts doubling" or "body parts stand-in" work. Also suggest Hand model be merged into Body Double as well, since each "doubling" use has a specific purpose depending on the body part in question and because the actial identity of the part's owner is not revealed (for one reason or another). Schmidt (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreement with merge. Considering the relatively small amount of information in this article, I think it would be rather easily merged and might be more at home there. This has my agreement. - Vianello (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stunt_cock&oldid=1138802024"