Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal torture

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anal torture

Article has no citations, barely more than a dictionary defintion, and tells us very little, no prospect of expansion using reliable sources, it seems. All content in the current article is just a loose collection of things that don't have much to do with one another. Only Yesterday's Tomorrow (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is a mess and needs a substantial re-write (probably stripping down to a stub), but as a subject within the BDSM field it's valid. Ged UK (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a pain in the ass, delete Completely unsourced, with a few references to a rumor about an English king, the name of a porno film, and someone's description of how hot pokers, painful objects, and hot and cold items placed..uh, there... would HURT. Unsourced, let's hope it's not "original research". Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just hope someone doesn't get butthurt over the deletion of this article. (I had to do it...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It pains me that I have to even point this out, but EVERYTHING2.COM is not a valid source for an encyclopedia. (!!) coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much unsourced. I wouldn't necessarily vote to delete a GOOD article on this subject, but this is not it and doesn't look like it'd become one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unreferenced information. Artene50 (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stick this where the sun don't shine. JuJube (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced. --Npnunda (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This article seems confused between the group of sexual practices and the execution method--very well documented, unfortunately, though the evidence for K. Edward, the one example here, is I think considered weak. . I dont think there's enough here that's authentic for an article. i usually support articles in this area, in acknowledgment of the difficulty in conventional sourcing , but this is not adequate.DGG (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a poorly formed, uncited article.-- danntm ^T _C 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would've said "wipe it," but that would've made me look like a wise ass. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2008 (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.