Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headfucking


 * 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. MuZemike 20:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Headfucking

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Unsourced, fictitious sexual practice, falling under the category of WP:NOT (dictionary of mythical sexual practices), illustration notwithstanding... Research shows quite a range of terms commonly used, most seeming to veer toward mindfuck. Delete as a not notable neologism, which fails WP:V and WP:RS. I can't wait to see the comments on this one. Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating disambiguation page:


 * I wish this was true. I cannot tell you how much I wish this was legit. I would dearly love to see this reach FA status. On the Main Page, professionally offended types wailing about the moral depravity of it all. Ah well, I suppose we had our moment. Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sexual fiction doesn't fall under the category of WP:NOT (where do you see that on that WP:NOT page?) I agree it needs to be improved and sourced but the (old) illustration itself proves this is kind of a fantasy that has been invented long ago! --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: maybe we can merge it into List of sex positions (where other fictitious sex acts are already listed, such as DVDA and autocunnilingus) and then redirect Headfucking to the disambiguation page I'd also created Headfuck. --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 12:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do we see that on the WP:NOT page? How about the section that says Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought? Anyway, snow delete because the fact that the article describes it as a fictitious sexual practice pretty much sums up WP:MADEUP (by the way, it sounds very painful). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't invent it myself so it has nothing to do with WP:MADEUP or with the rule of "original thought". --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MADEUP is about things 'you or your friends' made up: stuff that hasn't received any significant coverage. Simply being fictitious is by no means a bar to inclusion. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't "sexual fiction", this is a fictitious sexual practice. "Fantasies" are not notable unless they have been discussed at length by reliable third party sources. Urban dictionary is not considered a reliable source. Merging this with List of sex positions would not be helpful, since it isn't a sexual position in the real world, and hasn't received any significant coverage except as an abstract expression. It is not notable as a "neologism", not notable as a "sexual act", and not notable as a "fantasy." -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  05:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not: see my comment below: there's a video, proving it's not a fictitious sexual practice. --Arkelweis (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One dubious occurrence possibly qualifies for Ripley's Believe It Or Not, but certainly doesn't lend notability or credibility to keeping the article on Wikipedia. Also, the recent edit you made to Headfucking taints the accuracy of the inline citation. Even the Urban dictionary doesn't claim that it's "rare." I suggest that it would be best for you to change the "rare" verbage, or provide a reliable source (not including a porn video link), or it will be removed as a "dubious and unsourced claim". -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  08:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you give it more than a few days, mayhaps a citation will turn up? Please don't stop the article from developing naturally by removing (possibly only temporarily) uncited claims whilst it's being AfD'd, as it might bias the process (not accusing you of gaming the system, just saying that removing uncited sources without giving them a chance to be cited by another editor who comes across it happens to stunt the articles development, whilst the question of wether it could develop into a worthwhile article is under discussion here)


 * the [citation needed] makes clear that the urban dictionary citation doesn't include any mention as to the practices rarity, and i'm not sure that you're correct to say that a porn video of headfucking doesn't prove that headfucking exists. Note that i'm not claiming the video proves notability (in fact, i'll admit that it's a good argument for merging with some kind of list of esoteric sexual acts, but would prefer to see how the article develops first) --Arkelweis (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll be hands off. Add all the unreliable source(s) and porn video links you want. Best of luck with that "development." -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  09:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, i think i'll re-insert the edits then be hands-off myself wrt those two things --Arkelweis (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability has not be established with even a single reliable source. Pure original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's not fictitious, disturbingly enough -- I found a video on pornhub, but can't add it to the article (pornhub links are blacklisted). link ends with "view_video.php?viewkey=7443b968a444224214bc" if anyone wishes to verfy (also, how would we/should we get the link deblacklisted just for that article?). Article should be allowed to develop naturally. --Arkelweis (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A single video doesn't make it notbale. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well a video + an illustration (on Commons) + a definition on Urban dictionary... it's starting to make it a bit more notable! --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * change to Keep or merge dependant on notability (half a million google results, many of which are probably 'mentally screwing with people', is the best I can do: any other notability claims? -- if not, merge with another list/article) --Arkelweis (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable, unsourced. Well, it is sourced, but it's urban dictionary. Per nom really, and the above comment by Compfunk2, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with some other sex article like List of sex positions as suggested above. --CPAScott (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's only sourced to Urban dictionary! Why are we even discussing this? Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. can i just cite monty pythons argument clinic? no it isnt. and the illustration does not mean anything. a PHOTO, yes, then we would have absolute notability, if it wasnt photoshopped. babies are born way way too early in their development compared to other animals, solely because of our big heads. its an evolutionary tradeoff, and we are lucky we barely make it into the world. this act is not possible for 99.9999999% of human beings. do the math. now, maybe an article on the desire to return to the womb...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, too many unrelated thoughts. waste of everyones time to elucidate. its not a real sex act, and the article is only a definition, self evident, so no reason for article. illustration is a cartoon, not intended to be used to document something.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete maybe even merge into an article about sexual fantasies. Nevertheless, I'm for a delete.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of notability. Of the three editors above who are in favour of either "keep" or "merge":
 * CPAScott simply says "merge", but gives no reason at all.
 * TwøWiñgš gives two reasons: it "doesn't fall under the category of WP:NOT", and it "has been invented long ago". Neither of these addresses Wikipedia's inclusion criterion of notability. (Incidentally I think it does fall under WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDICTIONARY.)
 * Arkelweis is the only one of the three who has shown any attempt to find evidence of notability, but he has failed to do so. He finishes by saying "any other notability claims? -- if not, merge with another list/article" and again, like CPAScott he gives no reason for merging rather than deleting. The threshold of notability required for merging may be lower than that for keeping as an article, but it is still there; nobody has shown notability.
 * Some of the arguments above are about whether this is fictitious, and whether or not fictitious acts should be included. This is actually irrelevant: whether something is fictitious or not, the criterion for inclusion is substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Romeo and Juliet: fictitious but notable. My pet cat: not fictitious but not notable. Headfucking: not notable, whether fictitious or not.
 * I decided to repeat Arkelweis's Google search. For some reason Google gave me only 209,000 hits, not the half a million that Arkelweis says he got. I inspected 100 of those hits. I found "The headfucking task of returning home"; I found "start headfucking the nazis about israel being a prison camp for the assholes behind wwii"; I found "red head fucking a donkey", I found a page showing various gross sexual acts, but not literal "headfucking"; I found a blog the owner of which seems to have decided to call "headfucking" just for the fun of it; etc etc. I did not find any reference to the literal practice, except a link to this Wikipedia article. I am not saying that more references don't exist, but the fact that considerable effort has failed to turn any up strongly suggests that there is not enough coverage to establish notability in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, Arkelweis and I were actually debating "fictitious" claims on the article itself, summary to immediate deletion, which probably should have been limited to the talk page. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with both your argument for deletion, as well as the argument against merging. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, though I'm not sure that TwoWings wasn't arguing about fiction ina different sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me just explain how I came to write this short article. First I vaguely remember a strange fictitious story I heard when I was about 14 (in the 90s) where it was question of a man choosing between being hanged or have to insert his head in the vagina of a huge woman (and eventually whose head was kind of aspirated within the woman's vagina - yeah it's weird!). Then a few years ago I had actually seen the video Arkelweis is talking about (but I thought it was special effects not real). And a few days ago, I discovered the picture which I included in the article, which made me think "is there something about headfucking on Wikipedia?" and since there wasn't I just decided to create the page. The illustration by Martin Van Maele (dated 1905) made me think it was a quite old sex act, fictitious or not, and therefore notable enough to deserve an article. You think the contrary? Fare. I just expose what I think about it and how I came to create it. I just really think that the illustration itself proves it's quite an old fantasy... --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "For some reason Google gave me only 209,000 hits, not the half a million that Arkelweis says he got" -- yes, sorry, must have looked at the wrong tab. "head in pussy" gives half a million, whereas headfucking gives 209,000... "gives no reason for merging rather than deleting. The threshold of notability required for merging may be lower than that for keeping as an article, but it is still there; nobody has shown notability" -- a list of sexual practices should be finite and relatively small, so we could go for 'exhaustive list' rather than 'list wherein each entry is at least a bit notable'? --Arkelweis (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per JamesBWatson's failure to find any reliable sources (or even unreliable sources) discussing the term. As he says, no valid reason for inclusion has been discussed. Is there some sort of purple barnstar we can give James for braving the results of that Google search, I wonder? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * weak Keep on the basis of the 1905 illustration by a famous erotic illustrator Martin van Maële, which is a RS that it was considered a fictitious pornographic act. There is no evidence it is real, and the article should indicate that. Maele illustrated fiction, not news or medicine.  FWIW, photos purporting to show it can apparently be found in utube with the right search terms    DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 5 October 2009 (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.