Deletion of Ass to mouth

Comment: per Mallanox.  To Student7, #CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on most sexual fetishes; this is pretty mild in comparison to some of them, and it _is_ an established term in the industry
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: google hits are very high. This term is in common usage, it does not violate ,  or OR. A cite tag would be sifficient to cover 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:V)

Comment: per  and .  I'm completely willing to accept that this may be a commonly used industry term, but where is the verifiable citation of that?  In it's current form the only reference is to the use of the term in Clerks II, which would make it a neologism by definition (and not a common one).  This article needs to CITE AND VERIFY notability, not simply have a collection of editors here make assertions that "it really IS a common term, really!".  I'm aware there are a number of terms in every industry that are commonly used colloquially but hard to prove, but it strikes that if there is any industry where one should be able to verify via web-based sources, it would be the adult industry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NN)

Comment: I am 100% unsurprised that medical and psychological researched turned up nothing. However, cast your eyes over the net and you will see thousands (Google says millions, but let's be realistic) of uses of the term. With this much weight of evidence, to argue  is arguing semantics. The term is not unverifiable but by dint of what it is "respectable" sources won't mention it. Remember, Wikipedia is unusual in that it is uncensored
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: maybe you just do not understand, Malla. For a source to be considered reliable in an article about a neologism, per , which would justify an article about a neologism, the following must be followed: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers **about** the term — not books and papers that **use** the term. The source you added to Ass to mouth is merely an article that uses the term by noting "there is currently a trendy fetish for ass-to-mouth contact." Per , "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use", even though Google hits "show many examples of the term in use" - that is just not enough to justify an article about a neologism, yet your vote for "Keep" was based upon "google hits are very high. This term is in common usage." My friend, the base of your vote is irrelevant to this matter. It seems most votes are being cast here upon mere editor preference. I cannot understand why people seem to have so much difficulty simply reading and following the clearly stated policies at , although apparently so not always so, as even the NfV for Handjob is seeming to right now indicate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Handjob
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO||WP:NEO)

Comment: for those saying "Keep", I think you need to carefully review . This article just does not meet muster
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: in my opinion, and remember these are opinions that we have even though some present them as fact, this article is valid. This practice goes on and if Wikipedia is to have any credibility it must be complete, if we are to have a category on sexual practices it should give the prevalent ones. This is an example of where  (though I shudder to use it) is appropriate. There is a huge swathe of uses of Ass to mouth, ATM, A2M etc on the internet. There are interviews that include the term, it's not just in the "script" of a porn shoot, it is used verbally to communicate an idea. This is something real people do in their everyday lives, like it or not. Adherence to rules is ok but recognising when the rules don't serve the purpose for which they were written is essential
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Of course the term has been around longer than ''Clerks II''. The problem is finding |reliable sources to provide |verifiability so you can then establish |notability which this article does not do
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: and redirect to anal sex. The term is for the most part a |neologism of a sexual "move" seldom seen outside of the porno industry. It's usage in the movie Clerks II gives it ''some'' more |notability but it fails to solve |reliable sources and |verifiabilty issues. A blurb in the anal sex article would do just fine. Same with the "ass to pussy" article because as is stands now both of these articles fail policy criteria for inclusion
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:V)