Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double vaginal, double anal (second nomination)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Double vaginal, double anal

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Still doesn't seem notable enough for an article to me. No references to establish any sort of factual accuracy.  Daniel Bryant  08:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ''See first nomination


 * It's an invalid act but somewhat of a valid term, but it does indeed require much better sources (read: any) if it is to stay. --Golbez 09:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable to be here. --Masterbobo 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I've had drunken conversations about this with my mates, which gives some anecdotal notability. Seems like a notable enough term, if more sources can be found.  Lankiveil 10:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete, per nom. and Lankiveil. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The act described is physically impossible in the real world, and thus oloks to me like not notable unless it becomes common in fiction. Anthony Appleyard 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Physically impossible in the real world"? I don't think you're watching the right kind of - er - specialist movies. (not work safe!) Still Transwiki & delete as a dicdef. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Doczilla 17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Double Delete Impossible nonnotable sex act, until such time as five legless contortionists in zero G achieve it verifiably. Edison 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert to DMB - an unusual solution, perhaps, but though there is insufficient material for an encyclopaedic article there are two uses of this abbreviation. TerriersFan 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * weak Keep -- since there were movies purporting to show it, it is N, though we need good refs. to them. it does not have to be possible in order to be notable: Superman, etc etc . for hundreds of thousands of WP articles. DGG 01:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's non-notable; and likely to be impossible (as other users said), unless the woman was big and the four men were very small (however, that point does not make the article any more notable). Acalamari 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - merge into Orgazmo or DVDA_%28band%29; as a single joke, article will never be more than a stub. -- LeflymanTalk 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are stupider things that are kept on wikipedia. Besides what do you care, you aren't paying for the bandwidth.--68.192.22.48 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable third party sources exist to support this article.  Burntsauce 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the commenters above unless reliable sources can be provided. Yamaguchi先生 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do we really have to discuss about this? Do not transwiki as it doesn't seem to be a widely used term.— JyriL talk 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Gillyweed 13:51, 19 April 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.