Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different-sex sexual practices

To add to this deletion debate, click here

I want to nominate this page as being, in my estimation, not really necessary (it seems to be little more than a crude rewrite of same-sex sexual practices, in the same vein as the recent History of heterosexuality debate -- it adds nothing that isn't already covered elsewhere, and seems to be strictly a way to get around anti-gay concerns by hetero-mirroring gay content as precisely as possible. But I can't seem to grok the process for doing this right. Help! Bearcat 02:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete -- Cyrius | (talk) 03:18, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
Merge or delete. I'd merge both Same-sex sexual practices and Different-sex sexual practices into a single Sexual practices article--unless I'm missing something, the only difference between what activities can be done are vaginal sex and, um, "breast sex". Niteowlneils 03:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What about sexual practices concerning speedos?
Delete, or at the very least change the title. ("Heterosexual sexual practices" is preferable to me). Or I wouldn't be opposed to merging with a "sexual practices" article. Same-sex sexual practices only exists because it was started as the awkwardly-titled "Homosexual behavior" and needed a new name. Personally, I don't think it's a particularly informative article even now. But this one is less so. Moncrief 04:24, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
As the creator of the page in question (History of heterosexuality), I would approve a merge with Human sexual behaviour for both Same-sex sexual practices (SSSP) and Different-sex sexual practices (DSSP). Both would made great sections of a larger article. The DSSP article is no longer "little more than a crude rewrite" of SSSP, its now a crude rewrite with extra paragraphs tacked on.Hyacinth 05:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) In light of the continued debates are this subject, I propose we (wikipedia) create a Naming convention.Hyacinth 06:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) See: User:Hyacinth/Style guide
Delete. I have listed same-sex sexual practices for deletion also. Exploding Boy 12:28, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
Merge the two. Secretlondon 02:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Neither the title nor the content are an appropriate way to address the topic. We have better articles covering sexuality topics. As an aside, I find the sparring between pro-gblt and anti-gblt Wikipedians, many of them well respected, to be rather trying, and wish that everyone could get along. UninvitedCompany 21:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There are differences in such things as the frequency and legality of practices carried out in different and same sex situations and there's ample material for an article on each. Jamesday 15:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
From what I can see, four reasons have been given for deleting these two articles: "not particularly informative"; "inappropriate way of addressing the topic"; "the structure of the two articles mirror each other"; and "not really necessary". Although I agree that these are not some of our better articles, I find none of these arguments convincing. Maybe this is just a reflection of the very orthodox nature of my sex life, but I found parts of both of these articles informative. I'm not sure what is meant by "there may be better ways of addressing the topics". Maybe the person wants to see a more scientific, less pop culture approach. Whatever was meant, I encourage the person to add material that reflects their approach to the topics. The fact that the structure of the two articles mirrors each other is not a sufficient condition for deletion, even when the structural similarity reflects an ulterior motive by the original author. The structural similarity will be lost as people contribute to the articles. The claim that the article is not really necessary would be a valid reason only if the material was covered in basicly the same way in another article or if the subject was taboo for an encyclopedia, neither of which is the case. mydogategodshat 20:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Yacht 09:36, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, merge useful content where neccessary, this title is unnaceptable. Sam Spade 21:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Merge useful content where necessary. This title is unacceptable. Ambivalenthysteria 01:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Legitimate article, given that the same exists for "same-sex". 80.255 14:29, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep content, but move to new title page "Opposite-Gender sexual practices", make this one a redirect. See discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions under identity for explanation as to why. The content of this page in conjunction with the Same-Gender_sexual_practices content can form a comprehensive overview of the subject. And yes Virginia, it is relevant as it pertains to the entire issue of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. Lestatdelc 18:38, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Merge many of these sexual practices / sexual behavior pages together. Is there a sexuality project? If not, we clearly need one. For now, merge into Sexual practices by title similarity, as a first step. +sj + 10:16, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)