Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autofellatio/archive1

Autofellatio
I is very hard to find neutral information about sexual acts on the internet. Porn websites dominate the search engines. This article exemplifies how wikipedia can be just for sex education purposes in an intelligent way. Gravitodeathdeathrivercamscooper 21:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose IMO not a FA by any stretch of the imagination. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 21:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to bite newbies (assuming this nomination is made in good faith), but I think this nomination is borderline trolling, and if others agree, I propose to remove it speedily. &rarr;Raul654 21:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably trolling, the user has just created 40 user talk pages with welcome messages for nonexistant users. --fvw *  21:32, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this is trolling, and if it is speedied I will be very disappointed. While it almost surely won't become a featured article, it deserves at least due process. LizardWizard 21:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your belief aside, it's clearly trolling, and if you were serious, the troll would be saddened that you've missed his rather obvious point... illustrated misinformation and jokes doesn't make a featured article. - Nunh-huh 21:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm interested: what in the article is misinformation? Exploding Boy 21:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Almost everything that isn't irrelevant or self-evident. The Egyptian mythology; the ouroboros caption (who claims it?) The worst aspect of the article is that it treats "autofellatio" as though it were practised as often as it is fantasized about (it's not) and somehow manages to miss out reporting the fact that it's so uncomfortable that those who practise it do so not primarily for their own gratification but rather for the gratification of their audience. It's a porn thing, not a favourite sex act. And the irrelevant jokes and fictional autofellators add to the "amateur" feel. - Nunh-huh 21:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree this may be trolling. May as well put it to the test, though: we all know I'm willing to support sex-related articles for FA, but I don't think this is one of them.  It's too short (which, in itself, isn't reason for disqualification, I know), and it's just not really that interesting.  I don't see how it could reasonably be expanded since there's really very little to say on the subject, and so it's really more like a definition.  All academic though, since there is an open poll ongoing re: one of the article's images, so it's inappropriate to nominate the article at this time.  Exploding Boy 21:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What Nun-huh said. Kosebamse 22:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Remove this nomination immediately. --mav 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I find it inappropriate to nominate this article while the image is up for discussion. Clearly, it's not ready for FA status yet. Mgm|(talk) 00:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To quote SNL, "not ready for prime time."  &mdash; Brim 01:54, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)