537:. 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
31:
77:. 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.
270:
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
155:
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
343:
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.
406:- 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. Knowledge is not for things that someone thought up for their sex column once.
467:
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.
387:
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.
458:
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.
415:
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.
172:, which is a documented reality, the top references for this appear to be Knowledge and Urban Dictionary. Absent at least one credible academic reference, this needs to go.
148:
40:
297:. 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.
164:
what one might assume autocunnilingus might look like, but isn't actually autocunnilingus, and the article doesn't even mention it. In other words,
347:
309:
Sufficiently sourced, well balanced prose. In wiki-fallacy: othercrapexists (numerous sex acts that are not as well written), why not this?
366:
351:
121:
116:
600:
588:
561:
549:
521:
509:
472:
462:
410:
392:
359:
338:
326:
301:
289:
277:
262:
248:
239:
226:
210:
206:
per absence any significant discussion in reliable sources. It has been sitting here for quite some time in this inadmissible state.
198:
185:
125:
90:
633:
451:
374:
108:
447:
431:
17:
504:
160:
not seen any evidence it has ever happened. The other reference is to a picture of
Madonna in a yoga position which is
485:- the fact that it documents it as not known to be possible is itself information. It is a logical sister-page (ha) to
517:. The fact that it is hypothetical is not a good reason to delete, but the lack of evidence that it is notable is.
615:
65:
46:
235:: actually it is, as autocunnilingus has never been performed (at least, not proven) and autofellatio has been.
168:
and there are no actual references for its significance (or if there are, they are not in the article). Unlike
614:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
370:
355:
286:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
419:
298:
112:
439:
423:
546:
443:
427:
236:
84:
323:
223:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
499:
459:
389:
335:
207:
104:
96:
597:
570:
79:
627:
558:
533:
407:
312:
180:
174:
542:
538:
490:
486:
219:
169:
142:
494:
259:
518:
469:
245:
195:
557:. lack of sources for quite long time despite two threats for deletion. `'
273:
258:- it's a decent article about the non-existence of a sexual practice. --
608:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
285:
make this article as non-existent as the practice it documents.
25:
138:
134:
130:
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
618:). No further edits should be made to this page.
493:would need to incorporate its contents somehow.
8:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
334:Very educational and well-illustrated
7:
271:of difference one way or the other.
489:, which *is* possible; without it,
41:deletion review on 2016 October 15
24:
29:
244:Not according to the articles.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
194:per guy. This is just silly.
156:passing that the author has
569:per nominator's reasoning.
229:00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
650:
339:23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
327:19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
302:07:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
290:07:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
278:03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
263:03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
249:01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
227:00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
218:no more hypothetical than
211:21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
199:20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
186:20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
601:08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
589:14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
562:21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
550:19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
522:11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
510:03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
473:11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
463:20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
411:20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
393:11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
360:04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
240:15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
91:23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
634:Pages at deletion review
611:Please do not modify it.
166:it is completely made up
61:Please do not modify it.
452:few or no other edits
375:few or no other edits
350:comment was added by
454:outside this topic.
377:outside this topic.
287:Resurgent insurgent
455:
436:
422:comment added by
378:
363:
184:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
641:
613:
586:
583:
580:
577:
507:
502:
497:
437:
435:
416:
364:
345:
325:
321:
318:
315:
178:
146:
128:
89:
63:
33:
32:
26:
649:
648:
644:
643:
642:
640:
639:
638:
624:
623:
622:
616:deletion review
609:
584:
581:
578:
575:
530:per NicM, Guy,
505:
500:
495:
417:
346:—The preceding
319:
316:
313:
310:
299:Pavel Vozenilek
119:
105:Autocunnilingus
103:
100:
97:Autocunnilingus
78:
73:The result was
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
647:
645:
637:
636:
626:
625:
621:
620:
604:
603:
591:
571:Andrew Lenahan
564:
552:
525:
512:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
413:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
380:
379:
367:69.241.250.114
352:69.241.250.114
341:
329:
304:
292:
280:
265:
253:
252:
251:
242:
213:
201:
162:something like
153:
152:
99:
94:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
646:
635:
632:
631:
629:
619:
617:
612:
606:
605:
602:
599:
596:. What the
595:
592:
590:
587:
572:
568:
565:
563:
560:
556:
553:
551:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
529:
526:
523:
520:
516:
513:
511:
508:
503:
498:
492:
488:
484:
481:
474:
471:
466:
465:
464:
461:
457:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
433:
429:
425:
421:
414:
412:
409:
405:
402:
401:
394:
391:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
376:
372:
368:
361:
357:
353:
349:
342:
340:
337:
333:
330:
328:
324:
322:
308:
305:
303:
300:
296:
293:
291:
288:
284:
281:
279:
276:
275:
269:
266:
264:
261:
257:
254:
250:
247:
243:
241:
238:
234:
231:
230:
228:
225:
224:Paloma Walker
221:
217:
214:
212:
209:
205:
202:
200:
197:
193:
190:
189:
188:
187:
182:
177:
176:
171:
167:
163:
159:
150:
144:
140:
136:
132:
127:
123:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
98:
95:
93:
92:
88:
87:
83:
82:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
610:
607:
593:
574:
566:
554:
543:autofellatio
539:masturbation
531:
527:
514:
491:autofellatio
487:autofellatio
482:
418:— Preceding
403:
331:
306:
294:
282:
272:
267:
255:
232:
220:autofellatio
215:
203:
191:
173:
170:autofellatio
165:
161:
157:
154:
85:
80:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
450:) has made
373:) has made
594:Autodelete
460:Suriel1981
390:Suriel1981
336:Suriel1981
208:Mukadderat
598:RFerreira
496:Sai Emrys
440:Wikiastid
424:Wikiastid
628:Category
547:Salaskan
545:please.
448:contribs
432:contribs
420:unsigned
408:Moreschi
348:unsigned
237:Salaskan
149:View log
541:and/or
233:Comment
122:protect
117:history
567:Delete
555:Delete
534:WP:NOR
528:Delete
515:Delete
404:Delete
295:Delete
283:Delete
268:Keep.'
256:Delete
204:Delete
192:Delete
126:delete
86:scribe
75:delete
559:mikka
260:Haemo
181:Help!
158:still
143:views
135:watch
131:links
16:<
532:and
519:NicM
483:Keep
470:NicM
444:talk
428:talk
371:talk
356:talk
332:Keep
320:ecir
307:Keep
246:Artw
216:Keep
196:Artw
139:logs
113:talk
109:edit
582:bli
317:cat
274:DGG
175:Guy
147:– (
81:WjB
630::
585:nd
579:ar
576:St
573:-
501:Âż?
446:•
438:—
434:)
430:•
365:—
358:)
222:.-
141:|
137:|
133:|
129:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
43:.
524:.
506:✍
475:.
442:(
426:(
369:(
362:.
354:(
314:O
311:—
183:)
179:(
151:)
145:)
107:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.