426:
278:
405:- 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
438:
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
Knowledge mirrors, blogs, forums and other classic signs that this is something people with internet access and time to kill care about,
200:
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
417:-- 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. --
92:
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?"
125:. 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
178:
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.
129:. This has a Knowledge article in six languages and the topic gets a lot of Google hits (autocunnilingus, "auto cunnilingus", selfcunnilingus, "self cunnilingus" etc.).
122:
118:
252:
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)
451:
430:
391:
379:
363:
350:
330:
318:
302:
282:
256:
244:
232:
215:
182:
166:
133:
109:
97:
79:
56:
17:
326:- Notable topic, possible or not. I am somewhat amused to find myself agreeing with Badlydrawnjeff in this discussion. --
342:
on this article, and you may not have realized it, but that source does not mention autocunnilingus. Or sex, period. --
443:
and no one could find anything... I'd close this as a delete but I'll leave it to another admin, this has serious
466:
36:
465:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
228:
388:
298:
to disprove the major accusation: the article is original research and hence against wikipedia policies.
224:
145:, it seems only reasonable that we would have one on the female counterpart. Yin and Yang if you will.
207:
but this has less cultural currency even though it's probably more "popular" in pornographic terms. --
146:
54:
448:
376:
347:
212:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
315:
299:
62:
88:
per nom. Uncited, with several POV statements as well. Compare with the male counterpart
419:
360:
271:
241:
179:
49:
343:
208:
94:
76:
72:
410:
204:
191:
142:
89:
71:
since first nomination a year ago nothing has been done to prove that this is not
444:
406:
327:
130:
106:
253:
126:
425:
277:
195:
439:
but no one else apparently. This has been tagged as needing sourcing for
399:--we kept it the last time, and I see no reason to go through this again.
175:
359:
That suggests we need to get more references, not delete the article.
338:: Have any of you "keep" voters looked for any sources? There is
459:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
413:. Voting 'clean up' or 'expand' is pointless, since nothing --
440:
375:
per Prolog and agree with
Sockatume's comment above --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
269:reflection on your seriousness about Knowledge. --
469:). No further edits should be made to this page.
141:- per Prolog. Also, if we have an article on
8:
174:Suggest it be built up as a sub-section on
294:per nom. The keepers-voters didn't do
447:issues that need to be considered. --
7:
203:I performed life-saving surgery on
201:there other than some altered ones.
24:
424:
276:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
387:. Equal rights for womyn! --
223:per Prolog, who nailed it. --
452:17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
431:14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
392:02:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
380:00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
364:12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
351:09:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
331:21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
319:01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
303:19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
283:14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
257:18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
245:14:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
233:11:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
216:08:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
183:00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
167:20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
134:19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
110:17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
98:16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
80:16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
57:17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
486:
462:Please do not modify it.
265:Well, your voting is an
32:Please do not modify it.
48:, so kept by default -
198:, who ought to know,
196:According to this guy
231:
105:per nom. NN, OR.
73:original research
477:
464:
429:
428:
422:
281:
280:
274:
227:
52:
34:
485:
484:
480:
479:
478:
476:
475:
474:
473:
467:deletion review
460:
421:Shrieking Harpy
420:
418:
273:Shrieking Harpy
272:
270:
240:per Prolog. --
66:
63:Autocunnilingus
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
483:
481:
472:
471:
455:
454:
433:
400:
394:
389:Roman Czyborra
382:
369:
368:
367:
366:
354:
353:
333:
321:
305:
288:
287:
286:
285:
260:
259:
247:
235:
225:badlydrawnjeff
218:
185:
169:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
136:
112:
100:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
482:
470:
468:
463:
457:
456:
453:
450:
446:
442:
437:
434:
432:
427:
423:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
398:
395:
393:
390:
386:
383:
381:
378:
374:
371:
370:
365:
362:
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:
332:
329:
325:
322:
320:
317:
313:
309:
306:
304:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
284:
279:
275:
268:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
255:
251:
248:
246:
243:
239:
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
197:
193:
189:
186:
184:
181:
177:
173:
170:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
135:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:
111:
108:
104:
101:
99:
96:
91:
87:
84:
83:
82:
81:
78:
74:
70:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
461:
458:
435:
414:
402:
396:
384:
372:
339:
335:
323:
311:
307:
295:
291:
266:
249:
237:
220:
205:donkey punch
199:
187:
171:
143:Autofellatio
138:
114:
102:
90:autofellatio
85:
68:
67:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
316:SandyDancer
340:one source
300:Mukadderat
127:gerbilling
77:mikkanarxi
361:Sockatume
267:excellent
242:Bpmullins
180:Sockatume
123:first Afd
51:Yomangani
441:8 months
344:Dhartung
312:Clean-up
296:anything
209:Dhartung
176:Oral sex
95:23skidoo
449:W.marsh
415:nothing
377:Arvedui
336:Comment
172:comment
436:Delete
403:Delete
328:Improv
292:Delete
188:Delete
131:Prolog
107:Edison
103:Delete
86:Delete
411:WP:OR
254:Anomo
192:WP:OR
16:<
445:WP:V
409:and
407:WP:V
397:Keep
385:Keep
373:Keep
348:Talk
324:Keep
310:but
308:Keep
250:Keep
238:Keep
229:talk
221:Keep
213:Talk
139:Keep
115:Keep
75:. `'
190:as
119:Vfd
69:del
346:|
314:--
211:|
194:.
121:,
117:.
163:y
160:b
157:b
154:o
151:b
148:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.