Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocunnilingus (2 nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No consensus, so kept by default - Yomanganitalk 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autocunnilingus[edit]

del since first nomination a year ago nothing has been done to prove that this is not original research. `'mikkanarxi 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Uncited, with several POV statements as well. Compare with the male counterpart autofellatio which includes substantially more content. Suggest redirecting to autofellatio, and maybe adding a paragraph to that article about this subject -- but only if this isn't just a case of someone speculating "well, if guys can do it, what about women?" 23skidoo 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN, OR. Edison 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vfd, first Afd. Autocunnilingus seems like a myth, but it's well-known one and notable enough. The article is pretty well written and isn't trying to state that the practice of this is common or even possible. Compare to gerbilling. This has a Wikipedia article in six languages and the topic gets a lot of Google hits (autocunnilingus, "auto cunnilingus", selfcunnilingus, "self cunnilingus" etc.). Prolog 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Prolog. Also, if we have an article on Autofellatio, it seems only reasonable that we would have one on the female counterpart. Yin and Yang if you will. -bobby 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Suggest it be built up as a sub-section on Oral sex for a time. If it's long enough then it can be budded off into an article on its own. If not the content's already part of an article and doesn't need to be merged into something. Win-win. Sockatume 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. According to this guy, who ought to know, I have been searching for a long time for proof of that. I belong to a couple of groups on the internet who are also searching for it. We as a collective have yet to find any proof. I am positive that it can be done because if I were a woman I could reach. But yet there aren't any photographs out there other than some altered ones. I performed life-saving surgery on donkey punch but this has less cultural currency even though it's probably more "popular" in pornographic terms. --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Prolog, who nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Prolog. -- Bpmullins 14:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article's picture is a wonderful sight. It has been saved to my hard drive. (I know this is not a valid reason, but I am still voting) Anomo 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your voting is an excellent reflection on your seriousness about Wikipedia. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The keepers-voters didn't do anything to disprove the major accusation: the article is original research and hence against wikipedia policies. Mukadderat 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Clean-up --SandyDancer 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable topic, possible or not. I am somewhat amused to find myself agreeing with Badlydrawnjeff in this discussion. --Improv 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have any of you "keep" voters looked for any sources? There is one source on this article, and you may not have realized it, but that source does not mention autocunnilingus. Or sex, period. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests we need to get more references, not delete the article. Sockatume 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Prolog and agree with Sockatume's comment above --Arvedui 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Equal rights for womyn! -- Roman Czyborra 02:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--we kept it the last time, and I see no reason to go through this again.
  • Delete - Reviewing the VfD and AfD, all I see is a bunch of keep votes based on ... google hits. No sources. No PROOF that this can actually be done. Loads of hoax pictures. In the VfD the main reason repeated for keep was that this was a 'real, growing article'. It's a stub with a CARTOON drawing of a fantasy act that men want to believe in. Without FIRM proof, this fails WP:V and WP:OR. Voting 'clean up' or 'expand' is pointless, since nothing -- nothing -- has been done to do either since the VfD or 1st AfD. If this was about something from Scientology , or about Creationism, or something controversial that people hated the idea of, none of you would be voting keep based on the merits of the article. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really care if it's possible or not, it could be included as a hoax/urban legend/whatever. But I see no reliable sources even saying that... just a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, forums and other classic signs that this is something people with internet access and time to kill care about, but no one else apparently. This has been tagged as needing sourcing for 8 months and no one could find anything... I'd close this as a delete but I'll leave it to another admin, this has serious WP:V issues that need to be considered. --W.marsh 17:18, 9 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Autocunnilingus_(2_nomination)&oldid=1194950615"