Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocoitus


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. Avi 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Autocoitus
I do not think it is notable Alex Bakharev 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would err on the side of letting someone find sources. Article is currently unacceptable (particularly the external links.)- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonnotable porncruft, no reliable sources (can you call a porn video reliable?) YechielMan 08:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - (vomiting on floor in meantime). neologism; 15 ghits, not even worth redirect to appropriate article (if it exists). I want to ask if this is even possible, but I'm sure as heck not going to click on the pornotube link (in a public library nonetheless!). Part Deux 08:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as subject is not referenced by reliable sources. I see no reason why this would cause vomiting, though. -- Charlene 09:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. It'll never replace the popularity of "go screw yourself", so let's delete it here and now. Ohconfucius 09:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn neologism, 15 ghits. MER-C 13:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disambiguous page, composed of the current see also. Mathmo Talk 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as neologism. Somebody made the word up on talk:Autofellatio. Even less google hits than autoanilingus which was deleted ages ago. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. May be notable. See autofellatio. Let's put a stub tag on this, see if more sources are provided, and revisit this issue if the article doesnt grow / become better sourced. Александр любит мальчики 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your input. I can see your enthusiasm, but I suggeset reading up on WP:NEO, which states that we clearly don't allow neologisms unless they're notable. And this one certain is not. Part Deux 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - according to the sexual intercourse article and coitus, coitus is penetration of a vagina by a penis, so autocoitus is the wrong title for the page anyway. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete...and isn't this patent nonsense? This has got to be a joke, as someone mentioned (just a smart way of saying "Go f*ck yourself").  Anyone who could pull this trick off, though, I'd count as notable.  And flexible. --UsaSatsui 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. I've used "recto-cranially inverted", but that doesn't mean I'm going to write an article about it. Arakunem 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of references in literature. I added a section on references in literature to the article. Since the practise is real and sufficiently widespread, I cannot see that wikipedia should not cover it. If the term is deemed a neologism (which I personally do not see), it should be moved to an accurate heading. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sufficiently widespread"? Please. One sci-fi book isn't a very reliable source.  Maybe Dennis Miller uses this all the time in private or something, but you're going to have to do more than "they used it in a genre of fiction that's famous for making words up". --UsaSatsui 07:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename, as the term is inaccurate but the practice does happen. Simply becaues most "proof" is documented in porn at this time does not invalidate that the act gets performed. --Imaddman 09:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sci-fi and porn. Two great forces combined for a noble cause?  Personally, I'd accept porno movies as a valid source here, but only if they demonstrated this was a common theme in those movies.  That would settle the notability question.  Personally, I still doubt it's possible to perform aside of movie magic.  For the record, what would you rename the article?  --UsaSatsui 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper, nor is it censored. Anyway, perhaps a rename, but not a delete...  . V .  [Talk 15:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see this as "porncruft" at all. It's a sexual act that, like other different sexual acts, is capable of sustaining an encyclopedic article. It is also probably notable and verifiable in its field of "sexual acts". FT2 (Talk 00:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And it obviously exists, as per the two image links that were removed.  . V .  [Talk 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You've got to prove notability, not possibility. --UsaSatsui 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --Aulis Eskola 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: Note that this isn't an article about a neologism. Regardless of the term used, the act is what the article is about and the act existed before the term used to describe it, and independent of it. The act is not a neologism, and the article is not in fact an article on the word, whether made up or recognised, neologism or otherwise. As Imaddman, .V. and Cimon Avaro state, the act itself (independent of chosen article title) seems clearly outside the grounds of WP:NEO, and I don't see WP:NEO as applying. FT2 (Talk 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete neologism. --Vsion 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above searches. Addhoc 13:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.