Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocunnilingus

Autocunnilingus

Keep - This information is not harmful to anyone
del. Nonexistent sexual act. Nonnotable. only 446 unigue google hits, vast majority of which are "word-search catchers". Finally, screams original research; no reputable references provided. mikka (t) 06:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It might not be real, but it has clearly grasped the imagination of a number of people. It is worth mentioning as a counterpart to autofellatio, especially to dispel myths about its possibility. Oswax 06:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not supposed to "dispel" anything yourself. You are not addressing my arguments. mikka (t) 09:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter if it is nonexistent, so is cow tipping. It might be rarely talked about, but some folk are bound to ask 'what if?', and the article is there to answer and inform. Oswax 13:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that argument were valid, we'd never delete any articles. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - You mean we do ? Denni ☯ 02:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are references and documentation at cow tipping, and when I read this article, it looked a lot like speculation. If this is kept, would anyone work with me to clean up the article and make it sound a less like original research. Zach (Sound Off) 17:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Everything in it is original research. That's the problem. If it will be kept, I will search the internet diligently and delete each and every original speculation from this article. mikka (t) 01:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rama 06:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DS 14:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Vsion 15:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Previous vfd: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autocunnilingus. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to autofellatio. If this was mentioned in books and could stand out on it's own, we should keep it. But since we do not know who performed it, and most photos with this act are either drawings or photoshopped (faked). But, we could mention in autofellatio that there is a hypothetical counterpart that females can do and how it could be done. Zach (Sound Off) 17:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 50,000 google hits bogdan | ^Talk 17:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add autoanalingus. It's encyclopedic, has no unverifiable information, and is of an ok length for a short encyclopedia article. No reason to delete. And how can a sexual act be non-notable anyway? I would have laughed if they said "sexcruft", but heh. --Phroziac ^(talk) 17:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entertaining and informative.82.144.215.132 19:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can't see the harm in that, except a bad back, maybe. Alf ^melmac 19:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Possibly hypothetical" No! This article is built entirely on speculation, and as such has no place here, as amusing a topic as it might be. Denni ☯ 02:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And add a link to Chiropractic :). -Sean 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold. mikka (t) 01:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stop this nonsense - the article has been on VFD at least once before. There has been a strong consensus to keep the article, and there is one here again. Dysprosia 04:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written and notable, not to mention how it came out of the previous AfD with flying colours. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Reality is not a requirement for articles. --Prosfilaes 12:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 19:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extremely notable, I presume mikka is not as sexually aware as the rest of us are. Piecraft 13:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]