Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cum shot

: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 keep. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

=[[Cum shot]]=

:{{la|Cum shot}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cum shot}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Cum shot}})

Article money shot basically covers this concisely. As a separate article it is tending to be disruptive. Basically just a slang term bastardised from mainstream film-makers lingo, no need for a separate article. See: Arguments To Avoid WP:EVERYTHING DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Redirect Vodello (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There's an ample number of reliable sources on the issue. It's a sex article, it's going to get its share of vandalism, but the only thing that's making it disruptive right now is the nominator trying to get his uncited introduction in and the images out. I would say that if money shot is "mainstream film-makers lingo", cum shot already has undue bias on that page, and cum shot is already much larger than money shot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

::* I disagree, it is probably more likely to be a target of vandalism as it is basically a vulgarism unlike other many other article titles on sexual topics. You can say "it will get it's share of vandalism", yet every time it does it is wasting Admin and other editors time. Your ad hominem about me being disruptive is groundless. I have discussed many possible changes on the talk page. Are you suggesting that following wikipedia policy and discussing my changes are the same as vandalism? It was you who said to me on the discussion there "If you want to delete this article, I invite you to take it to WP:AFD" DMSBel (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • If you actually read WP:EVERYTHING, you'll see that it refers to our notability and verifiability guidelines, which say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." On the talk page of the article, I found three citations of the definition of "cum shot" from university presses that are easily reliable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge Money shot in to this article. "Cum shot" is a much wider known term. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • But they aren't the same article, or shouldn't be. Everyone keeps saying money shot is about mainstream filmmaking, which cum shot isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

::* that "cum shot" is a more widely known term is very dubious. To claim so is nothing more than conjecture.

  • Comment - This is a better article than money shot. That article should be merged into this one. Both should not be allowed to stand on the basis of the existence of both constituting a content fork. The graphic is unnecessary and inappropriate. —Carrite, Oct. 3, 2010.

::* Delete but Redirect I agree with Carrite about the graphic. However the article on money shot only needs a little expansion and that term is very much a part of a cinematographer's lingo. It would be inappropriate to submerge that money shot article into "cum shot", firstly because it has a wider usage than just in pornography. Secondly, people may look "money shot" up without awareness of any of the connotations given it by pornographers, they should not be directed to an article specifically on the usage of the term in pornography. Thirdly the term money-shot has been longer in use. It might be preferable to redirect (searches for cum-shot) to a particular part of the article on money shot refering to it's use in pornography. DMSBel (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:::: I concur that there is now a widely-accepted mainstream definition of "money shot" which might be encyclopedically covered. The sexual content now in money shot should be stripped out and moved to cum shot with a dab line at the top. Writing a valid money shot article would be a task, but I think it could be done. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

::* The article on money shot could probably do with some expansion to the the definition of the term as part general/mainstream film-making lingo (that is in it's primary meaning, without the connotations given to it through adoption by pornographers). This should not be too difficult to source. And I will do some internet searches as I have time.User: DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand "money shot". Money shot is a mainstream film term for the one special effect that is the scene people go to the movie for. A great examples is in the movie Grand Canyon (film), where Steve Martin's character explains a money shot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

:* Comment - Agree as regards money-shot being a mainstream/filmmaking term. As regards Steve Martins' character in a film, I think that might be stretching the definition of a reliable source. He is after all a commedian not a cinematographer. User: DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is a perfectly legitimate term. --132 06:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

::*it is covered in the article on money shot (DMSBel)62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::*in this instance "cum" is either deliberate, or accidental mispelling of "come", thus a Corruption (linguistics). DMSBel (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::: "Cum" is the commonly accepted spelling of the noun for seminal ejaculate, although the verb seems to still be often spelled traditionally. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

  • Keep even though it is a "repulsive" subject for some it still is a notable word/name of a sexual act.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::*Yes, it is a repulsive subject, however it is not the name of a sexual act.DMSBel (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:::*See my comment below. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep: WP:NOTCENSORED, and "cum shot" is a sexual act, and differs slightly from "money shot", which is specifically a "cinematic" cum shot in pornography. The two words are not synonymous, though they are linked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • :Specifically: if anything, Money shot should be merged into Cum shot, as it is essentially the way a cum shot is used in pornography. A section about its cinematic use, and the alternative term "money shot" in this context, would be appropriate. "Money shot" itself appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article, however. Money shot clearly has other meanings than cum shot, so I propose dabifying it (see Talk:Money shot). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::*Strongly Disagree about merging money shot into "cum shot" - I have already explained above why this would be a bad-idea. In any case there would need to be a proposal for a merger first, this is only an AFD discussion. Very much agree Money shot definitely is notable in itself as a term apart from usage in pornography. DMSBel (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:::*Uh, who exactly are you agreeing with there? Money shot isn't notable outside of pornography, as far as I'm aware. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::::I was agreeing with you as I thought you were saying the article on money shot should be kept. if you look there you will see it has a much broader meaning, though there needs to be some expansion to the article, the article on cum-shot explains how "money shot" is used outside the porn industry.DMSBel (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::Ah, I remembered seeing a money shot article previously, I was probably thinking of part of the cum shot article. The pornography section could mainly be merged into cum shot (and most of it is already covered as well), and the sourcing is weak or non-existent for anything other than the pornographic meaning. I will have a look for some sources before commenting on whether or not Money shot should be kept or merged into Cum shot, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::{{Done|Agree re: money shot}}; a brief google search for "money shot" -porn reveals that there are several reliable sources for meanings of "money shot" which aren't pornographic. In journalism for example, a "money shot" is a photograph which is valuable for use in a news story. Working on Money shot would be a good idea. Cum shot, however, is clearly very notable and not limited to the pornography industry, either. So keep both and expand Money shot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ok thats good, I had not seen that (journalistic) usage, but it should be covered in the article on money-shot. I still don't agree with keep "cum shot", it could all be covered fairly concisely in money-shot to my mind. I'll add that (regarding journalism) now.DMSBel (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:*I still think that to have an article called "cum-shot" really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. This is not Urban Dictionary - I simply do not see why it needs to be kept, except stubborness on the part of some editors. Is it really too much to ask that everyone step back a moment and think about this. DMSBel (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

::*It easily meets the notability guidelines, and you haven't provided a convincing argument for deletion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:: I theoretically agree with DMSBel, that ideally an encyclopedia would make an article called "Cum Shot" or a sexual "Money Shot" article go away, but it seems pretty clear that either or both could meet notability guidelines and pass any AfD challenge. I think the best approach is to split the sexual content from "Money Shot," since that has evolved into a mainstream cinematographic term, and to concentrate the sexual content into "Cum Shot." I'm generally in favor of the depornification of Wikipedia, but this is one that can't be dodged, methinks. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

:::Let's remember that wikipedia is not censored and that "I don't like it" is not a reason for deletion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Wikipedia is not censored. Send this failure to the archives rapidly please. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::It can go to the archives in due time 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::And not censored is not a reason for keeping! Carrite, I agree, money shot is definitely now a mainstream cinematic term, and has been for quite a while. I made the point that it is better to seek reasons that remain within policy, rather than searching out just those particular policies that can asserted selectively to back up something someone wants to keep. The flip-side of "I don't like it" is "I like it", neither in themselves are reasons. Is anyone here not heartily-sick of seeing WP:NOTCENSORED trotted out ad nauseam. I don't make a point of trudging through the toxic mess that the pornography project is to blame for. I didn't set it up. This is an utterly serious matter for wikipedians. What is to be done if a project turns into fetid swamp? I just wonder where reason has gone in these deletion discussions. Is it due to a lack of blood supply to the brain? Quite possibly.62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) — 62.254.133.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:::WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. And WP:NOTCENSORED is a reason for keeping, when the argument for deletion is "I don't like it, it should be censored". Note in fact that WP:NOTCENSORED is a wikipedia policy. As an addendum, since you feel that it is "better to seek reasons that remain within policy", please give a policy-based argument rather than simply making mildly offensive comments about other !voters here and protesting that you don't like pornographic references in wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::: This is User:DMSBel, posting once again without bothering to sign in. We're not heartily sick of seeing WP:NOTCENSORED trotted out, because we're not trying to get perfectly notable articles deleted because we consider the material they cover distasteful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah, it's me (DMSBel). I forgot to sign in. What can I say - sorry. Speak for yourself re. not-censored. I am sick of seeing it used as though it permits anything. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Actually, ideally, an encyclopedia which has any pretense to covering even a portion of the sum of human knowledge without censorship or POV should include such an obviously notable topic. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Snow? While clearly numbers can't represent the consensus themselves, it seems unlikely that an AfD with a single WP:IDON'TLIKEIT delete !vote (the nom's) and 8 policy keeps after 6 days stands a snowball's chance in hell of being turned to delete by tomorrow. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

:I read somewhere that this is not decided on numbers, but I would be interested ,not i hasten to add, for the sake of flogging a dead horse, but just as I am not familiar with everything on Wikipedia, how is consensus determined? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

: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.