Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to mouth
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
— User:CyberAnth, 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NEO||WP:NEO||WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)