Talk:Sloppy seconds

Regarding notability

An earlier version of this article was deleted by the WP:PROD process.

I believe this new, rewritten-from-scratch, version of the article now passes the WP:GNG, as it is about the act, not either of the slang terms themselves, and provides four independent reliable published sources (two for each name) to back up the notability of the subject. Moreover, above and beyond WP:GNG, I believe that the existence of two well-established terms for the same thing (with one dating back to the 1930s, and possibly all the way back to the 17th century) further reinforces evidence of notability and conclusively demonstrates that this is not a neologism. A simple web search will show that there are huge numbers of non-RS to back up my assertion that this is a distinct and article-worthy real-world phenomenon. -- The Anome (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested. A strong consensus exists that the sexual practice is the primary topic for the term. Calidum ¤ 04:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

---

• Sloppy seconds (sexual practice) → Sloppy seconds
• Sloppy seconds → Sloppy seconds (disambiguation)

– This is the clear primary topic - it receives far more traffic than all the other topics combined. Almost 80% overall, in fact.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• This seems more like a WP:DICDEF than an encyclopedia article. Should it be moved to Wiktionary? —  AjaxSmack  01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose not encyclopedic, also as AjaxSmack says. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure what should be done in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support There seems no question to me that this is the primary usage. Whether this article is sufficient to stand on its own or whether it fails WP:DICDEF should be a separate discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose accepting sloppy secondary use as primary. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support and expand. There is more to say about this topic, not least of which that it is also known as a "wet deck". bd2412 T 22:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support - why would it not be encyclopedic? I don't understand the logic of that. And other than that, the other things are presumably named after this, and it's the common usage term, so seems a clear WP:PTOPIC.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic. If it's unencyclopedic (which I doubt), handle the matter through WP:AFD.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.