Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space docking (sex act)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Space docking (sex act)
del urban dictionary is the place for these neosexlogisms invented in multitudes for their shock value. `'mikka (t) 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC) I completely disagree, this page is fantastic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.178.248 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - ridiculous to have a fresh page for every possible sex act (could be a whole new wiki in it though!). Nigel (Talk) 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Storkk 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/Flush? per above --Roninbk 14:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school bed one day. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nyuck nyuck. Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Above edit is IP's first and only edit to Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Without a Question keep, how else are we to find out about these things. it is related to that poo paraphilia as an example. It is ovbiously truthful, as there was that video. Knowledge is power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COLINCOLIN (talk • contribs)
 * Comment User's first edit. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has cite on urban dictionary, where there are multiple definitions. Apparently real term, keep it in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.51.29 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 September 2006  (UTC)
 * Keep - Factual, because of the reference in The Aristocrats, and the video evidence. If we pull Space Docking, do we pull the Rusty Trombone? Cream Pie? Snowballing? It's a slippery slope. Cop.rock 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Id have to agree that we would never have the oppurtunity to discover these things, however rare and deviant they may be, without pages like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.160.45.163 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep- Where else could this information be stored?Ctm18584 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep- Danny Lilithborne apparently has nothing better to do than look at other people's edit history. If something is notable, than so be it. Don't let the Wikipedia-Nazis delete everything just because they don't like the subject matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.115.166 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep- "Don't let the Wikipedia-Nazis delete everything just because they don't like the subject matter." True. DrWoody 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep- "This is the hottest thing since goatse. Need new pants. W.Marsh 04:20, 11 September 2001 (UTC)
 * Restated Delete First off let's remain civil, and avoiding references to Nazis. True, Godwin's Law applies, but it does nothing to reach consensus.
 * Wikipedia has policies for a reason, such as Verifiability andAvoid neologisms. Just because something is important to you, does not mean that it is encyclopedic. :Urban Dictionary is generally not considered as reliable as other dictionaries, because it has a lower peer-review standard than Wikipedia and Wiktionary.
 * The Aristocrats (film) came out in 2005, and the line was a tangential reference even within the film.
 * And just because I can videotape myself doing something, does not mean it's encyclopedic.
 * Come back when (and if) the term enters sufficient usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bold textGet rid of it and the video link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jm gargoyle (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per comments made at the top of this debate. How else are we supposed to find out about these things?  A simple Google search ought to be able to help you out.  I'd be concerned if people are using Wikipedia for sexual ideas.  A mention on Urban Dictionary does not make it a real term. -- NORTH talk 09:09, 15 September 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.