Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cum rag


 * 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. — Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cum rag

 * — (View AfD)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V (ref is urban dictionary and an online catalog that sells "cum rags"), possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article appears to have two references, can be expanded. Navou   talk  05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source since, like Wikipedia, anybody can edit it. TJ Spyke 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point. Navou   talk  06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You say it establishes notability, HOW does it establish notability? TJ Spyke 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete mostly due to WP:WINAD. I don't really know how much can be said about the subject of cum rags other than simply definition so I have a hard time imagining this expanding beyond a definition.  Then again, I suppose Toilet paper has a pretty robust article.  --Jackhorkheimer 07:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Jackhorkheimer echoes my sentiments here, and I think CyberAnth actually has this one right. --Dennisthe2 09:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't like CyberAnth's actions, but I would prod this for deletion myself as a dicdef, so I think it's fair to vote delete. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not a very good article, but it is notable, and could be improved given time. Atom 13:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete First off, this doesn't meet any speedy keep criteria, so that's not even a valid option. Anyway, while I appreciate that most of this group of nominations is a tad ridiculous, this particular concept really couldn't expand beyond dicdef status. I also note with some irony that Mr. Norton's response to this appears to be one used for almost all of these noms and would request something specifically documenting how this meets notability guidelines and establishes itself as more than a definition. GassyGuy 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge with Masturbation - For once, Cyberanth actually submitted an article on a sexual topic that really does warrant action. -- Kesh 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, unencyclopedic content. Although, I would love to be able to work a Cleanup joke in here somehow...Hmm, seems I did.  But seriously, nothing worth keeping. Wavy G 23:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemo (talk • contribs)
 * Delete One of the valid nominations; per nom. Akihabara 01:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Malla  nox  03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef and self-explanatory term. Cum rag.. let me think.. an art movement? A new heavy metal album? Breed of pig? That someone has humourously produced a hand towel with that stitched in doesn't convince me that this needs an article. The uncooperatively sticky nature of semen can be covered in its own article or the article of a fetish/activity involving it. QuagmireDog 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if it's a real term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 08:42, 7 January 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.