Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



from VfD:

  • Looks like utter nonsense. Exploding Boy 17:07, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • A quick google reveals 30,000 hits for the term, and from what I can tell off the results page, they're relevant. However, I see no reason this can't be redirected to swinging. Any objections? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actual concept is covered in swinging, the rest is POV and misdefinition. Gwalla | Talk 22:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: too vague to make a sensible redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:10, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't understand. Why not? People might easily type in this term. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it's something of a copyvio anyway -- it says "taken with permission", but what permission does the anon author actually demonstrate? (Not a rhetorical question; educate me if that notice is adequate.) --jpgordon {gab} 05:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to swinging. The term is apparently used by enough people to justify a redirect. SWAdair | Talk 07:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A redirect won't kill us, but "hotwife?" Really? Not "hot wife?" Oughtn't we be able to say to people who use the term "hotwife" and have never thought to search under "swinging" that they're too dumb to get the information? Seriously. If they use that term and are in that scene, don't they know "swinging" as another term for it? I know I'm being cantankerous, but I'm getting fed up with the "my name in lights" psychology that prompts people to do anything to get a unique entry in Wikipedia. Geogre 18:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to swinging. --Improv 19:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect seems in line. siroχo 20:29, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Term apparently in frequent use, so we should at least redirect it to a good place. —Morven 23:17, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep And of course I'd say that since I added it myself. First, regarding copyright allowances, I have an email from the website webmaster that I can send you. Of course, you can also contact the webmaster yourself. That's why the reference is given. Secondly, I argue that this entry explores a distinct angle swinging article does not. The majority of swinging is MF-MF whereas the hotwife lifestyle gives sexual exploration privilages to the woman alone. Lastly, I spent weeks trying to figure out if this particular lifestyle has it's own name, but could not find it for several weeks. Whenver this happens, I come to wikipedia and look up a similar or more general article, looking for clues. In this case, I tried "cuckold" but abandoned it as it's actually not the same as the so-called "hotwife" experience. Subsequently, I modified the cuckold article as well. The information presented in the hotwife article is what finally educated me to the lifestyle and I think it would be adventageous to others if we used the wikipedia hyperlinking method to allow them to find it here too. aristotle334 00:57, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to swinging. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs some cleanup and wikification, but it does seem to be different enough from swinging that it deserves its own page. ShaneKing 11:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Swinging is a sizable sub-culture in the US and the world. Millions of people subscribe to it and I don't think is a good idea for people who are not experts in the matter or have slim knowledge of it to come to a conclusion about what terms are "worthy" or not. I mean, would you bar books on hot wives, cuckhold and group sex from a public library because you think they have no value for you nor for anyone else?? swinger1

end moved discussion

Redirect discussion


Florian Blaschke, as you can see from this edit, I reverted you. Sorry if my edit summary sounded too threat-ish. What I mean is that this topic, under the term hotwife, is not WP:Notable, and clearly should be covered in the Swinging (sexual practice) article, where alternative wife terms are also used. It's already covered there...but currently without the term hotwife. But I do stand by my statement that I will take this article to WP:AfD if you revert the redirect and let the article stay in the poor shape it was in. Even if the article were well-sourced, "hotwife" doesn't need its own Wikipedia article. I am more of a WP:No split editor. If the split is not needed, then I am not for splitting. WP:Spinout also advises against unnecessary splits. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since this page is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you insist on the redirect, merge the content of this article into Swinging (sexual practice) and do mention the term there. I'm still unhappy with the solution since the article says that "hotwife" is emphatically not swinging. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, the content in the article is completely unsourced. So I'm not inclined to believe its assertion that "hotwife" is not swinging, especially when it is redundant to what is already at the Swinging (sexual practice) article. As for merging, I don't like adding unsourced material to articles. But I won't revert you if you merge the content to the Swinging (sexual practice) article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]