Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocunnilingus (third 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 delete. The weakness of the sources and the inherent problem of having articles about things that have not been proven to actually exist were not convicingly addressed by those arguing that this article should be kept. As such those offering delete opinions are not only in the majority but make the more persuasive case. WjBscribe 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autocunnilingus[edit]

Autocunnilingus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Kept twice, no consensus last time. What we have here is an article on a hypothetical sex act which has three references. Two of those are essentially the same. The first of those is an article mentioning in passing that the author has never heard of it actually happening, the second mentions in passing that the author has still not seen any evidence it has ever happened. The other reference is to a picture of Madonna in a yoga position which is something like what one might assume autocunnilingus might look like, but isn't actually autocunnilingus, and the article doesn't even mention it. In other words, it is completely made up and there are no actual references for its significance (or if there are, they are not in the article). Unlike autofellatio, which is a documented reality, the top references for this appear to be Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary. Absent at least one credible academic reference, this needs to go. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per guy. This is just silly. Artw 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per absence any significant discussion in reliable sources. It has been sitting here for quite some time in this inadmissible state. Mukadderat 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no more hypothetical than autofellatio.-Paloma Walker 00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: actually it is, as autocunnilingus has never been performed (at least, not proven) and autofellatio has been. Salaskan 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not according to the articles. Artw 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a decent article about the non-existence of a sexual practice. --Haemo 03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.' Whether it is hypothetical or not is totally irrelevant.if it is discussed as a fantasy or concept, it is every bit as valid a subject for an article as if it actually takes place. WP is not conducting a research study into the feasibility of reputed sexual practices. It shouldn't make the least bit of difference one way or the other. DGG 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete make this article as non-existent as the practice it documents. Resurgent insurgent 07:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-existent and discussed as a fantasy by 1 columnist. Also, media thirsty for any sensation are not the best indicator of notability in the real world. Pavel Vozenilek 07:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced, well balanced prose. In wiki-fallacy: othercrapexists (numerous sex acts that are not as well written), why not this? —Ocatecir Talk 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very educational and well-illustrated Suriel1981 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP*Why delete something that educates people. It offers real terms for acts. Its simply education, if people were to delete the page about birth control, maybe somewhere an insightful girl could become pregnant becauuse people like you guys voted to delete the information. please keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.250.114 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC). — 69.241.250.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is very true! Please do not delete the article on Birth Control, we don't want to be responsible for a population explosion. And we can't deny flexible females the education to further their lifestyle. Suriel1981 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the references confirm that this doesn't exist. Therefore, we shouldn't have an article about it: nor are there sufficient references to confer encyclopedic notability even in the absence of existence. Wikipedia is not for things that someone thought up for their sex column once. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the page is well documented, though not well referenced. Lack of evidence by the author doesnt mean that no one is engaged in this act, or this is totally hypothetical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiastid (talk • contribs) — Wikiastid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    I propose that if anyone owns any pictures of the act being performed succesfully that they upload them to Wikimedia Commons and add them to the article. Purely to prove that the act is possible. Suriel1981 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Several have produced images, but all have been questionable. Look at the talk page and article history. Even if someone did find a picture that wasn't obviously fake, we couldn't decide that it was real, we would need a reputable source saying so. NicM 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that it documents it as not known to be possible is itself information. It is a logical sister-page (ha) to autofellatio, which *is* possible; without it, autofellatio would need to incorporate its contents somehow. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that it is hypothetical is not a good reason to delete, but the lack of evidence that it is notable is. NicM 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per NicM, Guy, and WP:NOR. This is purely hypothetical and has not occurred yet. As soon as there's a reputable source which writes about how it is possible and how it was done, sure, add the article. And I'm sure the media and some prominent internet sites would write about it when someone really manages to perform autocunnilingus. Aside from the fact that it is just speculation, there's no significant source which writes about it except for a fantasising columnist. Add these two remarkable sentences at the beginning to masturbation and/or autofellatio please. Salaskan 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. lack of sources for quite long time despite two threats for deletion. `'mikka 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autodelete. What the RFerreira 08:29, 4 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Autocunnilingus_(third_nomination)&oldid=1082391666"