Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate sex (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 merge and redirect to Human sexual behavior#Aspects of human sexual behavior, even though it does seem to be an actual phenomenon, there isn't enough information, or reason, for it to be in an article by itself. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

• Delete. neologism. unsourced and unreferenced. page has been created by a banned user (Sarsaparilla) and edited almost exclusively by a sockpuppet (Obuibo Mbstpo) of this banned user. this banned user is known for creating hoax articles. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Patent nonsense, Wikipedia is not for something one made up in school. L0b0t (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• G5 creation of banned user. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Snowball delete as nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This term has been used in movies and pop culture, but there are no sources. Purge and clean. Cleave and Smite. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This belongs on Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and all above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Hate sex is an established slang term for having sex with someone you don't like. The article author didn't invent it, so WP:MADEUP is irrelevant. Finding sources was tough, but the New York Mag described Buffy the Vampire Slayer's sexual relationship with Spike as "hate sex",[1] The Guardian talks about characters in HBO's Hung having "sweaty hate-sex",[2] and Playboy's website featured a now-removed article listing conservative women they would like to have "hate sex" with,[3] which got coverage on Fox News.[4] It's not a neologism, it's not utter nonsense, it's not a hoax. It's not suitable for an article as the sources don't discuss it in depth, so WP:DICDEF does apply. Fences&Windows 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's more sources provided by Edison at the last AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hate_sex Fences&Windows 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Ironside writing in The Independent about sex and love: "You can have sex with people you really can't stand talking to, but are still attracted to. You can have sex with people you hate and who may hate you - the "hate fuck" - and you can also have sex with people with whom it is an unpleasant and abusive experience."[5]; Bill Simmons in ESPN: "There was also a scene near the end [of Hoosiers], before the caravan heads toward Indianapolis, where Hackman and Hershey discuss their future and decide that they can't end up together. Apparently Hackman's reason was, "I don't know if a marriage can be built on hate sex, let's cut it off now." Okay, I made that last quote up."[6]; Village Voice on Mr & Mrs Smith: "most entertaining when the Smiths are hell-bent on mutual annihilation—going from covert plotting to naked hostility. The prospect of a hot hate fuck looms tantalizingly, but Liman defuses the sexual simmer much too early with a PG-13 reconciliation, leaving Jolie and Pitt little to do but preen and cutely bicker."[7]. Misogynistic use of the term "hate fuck" about female bloggers has been discussed in Yale Journal of Law and Feminism[8] and The Guardian,[9] and triggered legal action:[10]. Its use in that context was synonymous with rape:[11]. Fences&Windows 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:DICDEF. Wiktionary is now the proud owner of wikt:hate sex, my first Wiktionary entry. Fences&Windows 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned with the state of the article and that it might be impossible to properly source this, but I'm neutral at the moment. The Mask of Hate that Ash added is actually a decent source, and I've found two other somewhat weak sources: I'm not sure this counts as a reliable source, but I wish it did:[12]. Student newspaper article about "angry sex":[13] Fences&Windows 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. F&W is right it should be in Wiktionary, but it shoud be here also, to talk about the phenomenon, not just the word. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not a dicdef, because a dicdef is characterised by having multiple distinct definitions. The article is not a neologism, it's been around for years, and Fences and Windows has found sources for it. AFD is about whether the article as defined can in the long run end up as a fully fledged article. I think the evidence above is sufficient to show that it can.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hang on there, none of the sources give significant coverage of the concept of "hate sex". I'll be impressed if you can put together an encyclopedia entry with those bare uses as your material. You have to go beyond a definition and attested uses for a Wikipedia article, and bear in mind that the current entry is wholly original research. Perhaps it can be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator to give editors a chance to see if it is salvageable? Fences&Windows 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research is when the editors invent something. This is about what I believe is sometimes also known as a 'grudge fuck', the contributor certainly didn't invent that. This seems to be just you trying to kill the article and rationalising it, poorly, after the fact. It seems that there is a potential article here, so the AFD should keep it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a well-known slang term that has encyclopedic merit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge After 2nd thoughts, make-up sex does not exist and it is more commonly referred to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing to indicate either encyclopedic merit or notability. I can't see anything that distinguishes "hate sex" from all the other reasons people have sex. The article does little more than explain the definition of the term, and therefore it is a dicdef. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to an article on reasons or motivations for humans having sex (or to a section in human sexual behavior)—there's certainly been some research and media interest in that recently[14][15]). This could include popular terms like "angry/hate sex," "make-up sex," and "pity sex." —Emufarmers^(T/C) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. We can merge to Human sexual behavior#Aspects of human sexual behavior. Fences&Windows 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Keep Certainly a topic that should be in an encyclopedia, if sufficient source material can be found, so definitely not a delete. OTOH, merging to a more general article while keeping this a redirect would suffice until and unless enough material for an independent article can be found. Carolina wren (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If nothing else, the TV/film formula of "characters who hate each other have sex" seems notable, and I'd be surprised if noone's written about it. --Alynna (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (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.