Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Figging


 * 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, although the headcount says otherwise. While the sexual practice seems to be real, the problem is that, except for the one work on 19th-century horsetrading, no reliable sources are on offer for any of this content (my Google Books search comes up empty), so WP:NOR/WP:V must take precedence. I suppose that a very summary merge of the bare facts to Anal masturbation and to some article on horsetrading would also be accepted by most of the contributors here, so if the proposals made here aren't enough, the original text is available on request. Sandstein 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Figging
Wikipedia is NOT for sexual practices made up in school one day. The 1913 Webster Dictionary "reference", if you can call it that, is completed unrelated. The factual accuracy of this article has been disputed for months because no sources exist to support it. Where are the reliable citations for this? If there are none this needs to go. Delete. SamKinney 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment For background on this see the talk page. This was brought to my attention when it was mentioned on a forum I frequent as an example of unusual sexual deviance with an interesting history. As with other finds on Wikipedia you take it less as a definitive source but more as a springboard to your research. To that end I did some further looking around and found:
 * This is a genuine sexual practice
 * The history/etymology is utterly unsupported and the references/links don't support the statements made. I have queried them and asked for sources and these haven't been forthcoming.
 * This left me with an unresolved quandry should I:
 * Put it up for deletion?
 * Remove nearly all of the article leaving a paragraph explanation. As Wikipedia isn't a dictionary it would probably go up for deletion anyway.
 * As it has been put up for deletion I am still unsure about the best way to progress. I don't really feel it warrants an entry for itself but might favour a merge with something like Anal masturbation (possibly in some section on the use of irritants) or it could just be deleted and if someone wants to add something on it there then they can. Ideally being put up for deletion will get someone moving to provide authoritative and independent sources so I'll withhold my vote for the moment. (Emperor 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Merge with Anal masturbation. Kukini 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. What verifiable information would you suggest merging to Anal masturbation, specifically? SamKinney 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its certainly an option I was considering. Something like: "Irritants are sometimes used in anal masturbation to heighten the experience. This can include the use of items like chilli powder and, in particular, ginger. The latter practice is called 'figging' and may have its origins in the horse trade ((fact)). As well as being inserted in the anus, prepared 'fingers' of ginger can be inserted into the vagina or urethra". That is pretty much all the relevant information - I suspect such things probably need a mention in that entry but that is pretty much all that can be proved so a separate entry seems unnecessary. (Emperor 14:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Actually, merge is a valid vote. I disagree with merging it, but it is legitimate to do so.  Sam, you had your say, let others express themselves without trying to counter every single persons comment, okay?  Doing so, besides being incivil, harms your own credibility.  Atom 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SamKinney was saying that this discussion is not a vote, and that therefore some rationale for a bare opinion that the article be merged is important. Xe is also not being incivil by engaging other editors in discussion, and you are wrong to criticize xem for attempting to have the very discussions that AFD is for. Uncle G 15:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I'm unsure on what to vote here. The article seems legit, however, it also seems unlegit & the external links don't really reveal or source anything. So i don't really know here... Sorry, Spawn Man 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are found. Kimchi.sg 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the article needs references, as do 1000 Wikipedia articles.  Figging is of course very real, I have done it many times and I know many, many people who play with it from time to time.  Figging has been around for centuries since the Victorian period or before, and is not a neologism.  Here are some sites that discuss it, not all are appropriate for references.
 * http://www.figging.com/
 * http://www.msmargaretdavis.com/Figging.html
 * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=figging, http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/adult_confirm?_done=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups-beta.google.com%2Fgroup%2Ffigging
 * Your initial assertion (that it is "a sexual practice made up in school") is incorrect, so your argument fails.Atom 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: No original research please. The sources you have cited include: figging.com, msmargaretdavis.com, urbandictionary.com, and Usenet newsgroups of all things, none of them are up to our standards for reliable sources and that goes double for Google groups. SamKinney 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is the discussion page, not the article. They are not in the article -- because they don't meet Wikipedia standards for references.  As I said in starting my sentence, the article does indeed need reliable references.  But that is not sufficient reason to delete the article.  My point in giving those references was in an attempt to assure people who are dubious that it even exists that indeed the case here is that someone needs to find good references (not a reason for deletion) rather than it being something that is made up, or not real (a good reason for deletion).  BTW, use of references in talk pages does not require meeting WP:V.  In articles, WP:V must be met, and WP:NOR is something entirely different.  Atom 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: this certainly goes further than 'made up in school one day' - the practice does exist and people do call it this. However, information in Wikipedia needs to be sourced, and I know of no wholly reliable sources for this at this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Google book search turns up a reference to this in the horse-dealer sense: The Management and Treatment of the Horse in the Stable, Field, and on the Road, William Procter (1883): '... what they term "figging" them, that is, by forcing ginger up the anus ...' Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, search Google Books for "figging horse" and you'll find pages of references from the 19th Century about the practise when used on horses. I thus vote a tentative Keep, although I would like to see more references for this as a sexual practise, not just a horse-dealing practise.  Seaching for "figging bdsm" returns one result in Italian that appears relevant (book from 2002) but (a) I don't know Italian, and (b) the book is only limited previewable on Google Books not including the relevant page. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice no sources have been found and it's been a long time, plus this debate has led to more research that has, again, failed. If reliable sources are found, the article could be recreated, but there's only so far I think we can let eventualism go, and we've reached that point here. Mango juice talk 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the books, mentioned above and on the talk page, one of which is cited in the article? Uncle G 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not adequately referenced. Edison 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anal masturbation using something like the paragraph I gave above. I am slightly concerned that it isn't in my main references like Cassell's Dictionary of Slang but it does appear to be a genuine sexual practice (the links aren't good references for history/etymology but they do prove it takes place). However, not every combination and permutation of people putting a range of items in a variety of orifices needs its own entry here. Docking is in Cassell's but warrants a section in a larger entry. On the other hand Felching has crossed over into popular culture and appears to deserve its own entry. Obviously deleting the current entry and inserting the above paragraph into anal masturbation would have the same effect I just don't want to prejudice that insertion by removing the material from the main entry "with prejudice." (Emperor 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete as complete bollocks. The word "anus" is pretty much a guarantor of unverifiability in any article about a suposed sexual practice of this nature.  Fails WP:NFT, WP:V and likely some other policies as well. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Scads of findable references to it as a historical practice of unscrupulous horse-dealers make it more than 'made up in school one day', I think. I suspect someone in the BDSM community in the last 5-10 years happened to read some old book in which it was mentioned, thought 'That sounds like a wicked idea' and publicized it.  I do suspect that claims that it's a long-standing sexual practise are complete bollocks, however; the only reference to it in a sexual context I could find in a dead-tree source was in 2002.  This might make it simply too much of a neologism to be in Wikipedia, of course, and insufficiently referenced, but there's no need to accuse contributors of making it up. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Have heard of this, though didn't know this name. Better references, please. WMMartin 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. A whole discossion about it here: http://www.spankingden.com/discus/messages/9334/9464.html?1164831851 - also more here - http://alt.com/intgroups/aa126/tyadmin/acprint_admin_article.html - had heard of the term and wondered what on earth someone was on about, so turn to the Wikipedia, but if it's been deleted ... well, I think there are people that would rather have the facts on here than have the detail on either of the links mentioned.
 * Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:40, 2 December 2006 (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.

MORONIC. wikipedia is not for censorship and this is not an unknown practice by any means. maybe you aren't canadian enough or something. someone just has some stupid censorship crusade, go back to your christian democratic union.74.104.16.79 11:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find persons who post pictures of their penis on wikipedia to be slightly more moronic, bucko.