Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocunnilingus (third nomination)

Autocunnilingus

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]
- 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).[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.