- 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. By the way, not all refs need to be online. The OED is avaialble in most public libraries. That is enough for verification. DES (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has to be a hoax, there are no references! XNYTV 10:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Original research and a
hoaxNeologism. There should be CSD for such. /Blaxthos 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep I don't think this is a hoax. The same editor who wrote this wrote Sex Diet which is well-referenced. Needs someone to actually do the legwork instead of rushing to delete.--Ispy1981 11:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hoax? No. Neologism? Probably. Google has 17k hits. YechielMan 12:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Needs more explanation of how to exactly do it, but my hunch is that this isn't a hoax. Certain types of stretching and exercising can increase sexual stimulation, but this article needs a lot of work to make it more legit. --David Andreas 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: References need to be added, but it doesn't look like a hoax. Quite a few archive ghits from the likes of Washington Post, Daily Mail and this one from BBC News with reference to NHS Direct. → AA (talk • contribs) — 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Sexercises" is an obvious play-on-words, so I would say neologism w.r.t. this article. JJL 19:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty notable enough. The article probably shouldn't be pluralised though. —Xezbeth 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although it appears to be a blatant (and inexperienced) attempt at vandalism, the article itself is notable. Fine by me. NSR77 TC 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the term is correct (in fact, it sounds more like a sales term, oddly enough), so I'd be inclined to a move and redirect. The problem is, though, that I don't know what one should move it to. So with that, keep, unless somebody can think of a less marketroidish name. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - nomination smells a bit pointy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer to
- Keep I added one apparently well known book, (52 libraries on OCLC, transl into 4 other languages). The singular seems to be the standard name--used in an article title in Lancet, There are others--there's obviously a lot of junk to sort through. The best known example, btw, is Kegel exercise. DGG 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete mainly to combat the obvious bias for keeping this category. But content-wise per Blaxthos Bulldog123 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete-rcise per neogolism Rackabello 15:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Oxford English Dictionary quotes sexercise (singular) as first being seen in 1942, so not a neologism.
a. Sexual activity regarded as exercise.
b. (An) exercise designed to enhance sexual attractiveness or to improve sexual performance.
132.205.44.5 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the page you reference for the quote is a subscription-required page. Can you come up with a better reference? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:23, 28 June 2007 (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.