Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocunnilingus (0th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. Postdlf 23:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autocunnilingus[edit]

delete - this is just stupid clutter. This might be useful if it could document a real mythos about this phenomenon, or a real culture of its practice, but it can't do either, and is essentially just sophmoric speculation--XmarkX 09:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Just because an article doesn't contain the information you desire, doesn't make it a valid candidate for deletion. Dysprosia 10:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have Autofellatio - lets be equal opportunity. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 10:10, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Results 1 - 10 of about 19,800 for autocunnilingus -wikipedia. (0.12 seconds)" seems to indicate there are an awful lot of sophmores out there. Excluding them would hardly be NPOV. CXI 10:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a real, growing article. Give it a chance. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it's real, it's worth covering, and if it isn't real, it's worth explaining why not. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 22:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons outlined above. -- The Anome 22:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. — Davenbelle 04:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Mackensen (talk) 05:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As per above. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 05:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep out of principle—the concept seems notable—although the article is worthless in that it tells very little about whether the feat can actually be accomplished. Everyking 01:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, illustrate. Postdlf 00:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I figure that some woman somewhere must be able to do this considering how many women the world has. I personally doubt that even one out of a million women can do this. Besides, if we have autofellatio, then we must, out of equality, allow autocunnilingus. We should treat men and women equally. -- Ŭalabio 03:03, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  • Keep!--Sonjaaa 05:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs time to grow. --[jon] [talk] 20:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep —Ashley Y 09:45, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Keep →mathx314(talk)(email) 0:43, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • Keep  ALKIVAR™ 11:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Rama 13:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep —Neuropedia 14:30, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why has this taken two weeks? — Asbestos | Talk 23:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed! For an article that is obviously going to be kept, why does it need to be on VfD for so long ... and when will it conclude?? TIMBO (T A L K) 00:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The bellman 03:42, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Keep Why would we delete it? It seems better to say that no one is quite sure if it's possible, than to say nothing. --ScottMorrison 20:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is possible, see for example http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LadyInfinity/
although it is possible, that is an airbrushed example of a woman from Penthouse magazine :)
  • Keep &mdash can we close this now? Dewet 13:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Autocunnilingus_(0th_nomination)&oldid=1144831978"