Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pity 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 to Human sexual behavior. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity sex

Delete: This page contains a lot of Original research with nothing sourced. Toad of Steel (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any information here that is not W:OR could be moved to the Human sexual behavior article instead.Toad of Steel (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be a good article topic, but this is not the way to do it, it's close to being a personal essay. The only "source" is this AskMen article; this link posing as a ref just goes to a spam website. Better to wipe this clean and let someone else take a shot at it in the future, with actual sources. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against re-creation. There is nothing here from which to form a decent stub article. sexnewsdaily.com (the one citation) does not appear to be a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I voted to keep it last time around, but the sourcing/improvements that I anticipated never came about. No prejudice to recreation with sources. bd2412 T 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Human sexual behavior, as the term itself is commonly used and is a plausible search term. LK (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selectively merge) to Human sexual behavior. I searched Google News and Google books for "Pity sex," "mercy fuck" and "charity fuck." All terms are in some slang dictionaries, attributed to the U.S in the 1960's or 1970's. They show up in some nonfiction books on self-help or sexuality, only briefly, since the concept seems to be one not needing much explanation, and in terms of how undesirable the experience is claimed to be.[1]. One observation which could be documented in the merge is that it may be an act of charity toward an unattractive male or female desiring to lose their virginity.[2] [3][4]. It's not clear that it is so terrible for the individual wanting his/her cherry popped, or who hasn't had any sex in quite a while. As the "Pizza Rule" says about bad pizza, "It's still pizza.[5]" The terms show up lots more in fiction books, again briefly as an undesirable experience. I could not find any extensive discussion to back up the original research in the article, however true to one's understanding of human behavior the article may be. Edison (talk) 22:28, 24 April 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.