Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partial Unbirthing

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 of the debate was Redirect to Vorarephilia. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Unbirthing

Ok, this is a tough one for AfD. Articles is about a "rare" (that's an understatement) sexual "fetish" as the article puts it. See for yourself. Beyond my feeling that the subject is wholly inappropriate on wikipedia (but Wikipedia is not censored), the subject strikes me as unencyclopedic due to it being rather obscure (again, an understatement). Note: Wikipedia has an article about Autofellatio, a fact that may be relevant here. I also suggest reading WP:PORN purely for information. Warning, the picture linked at the bottom of the article is *very* explicit, click at your own risk. Equendil Talk 17:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing sourced here. No studies on this or anything else. If there is a general sexual fetish article, it might be merged there until such a time that there is some notability established to this fetish. --Crossmr 18:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vorarephilia the same way unbirth is Ydam 18:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't get it. Vorarephilia seems to be about something else entirely, why is there a section about "unbirth" in there ? Looks like it's in the wrong place and redirecting just makes it all even more messy. Equendil Talk 07:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

comment hmm I see what you mean about being unrelated, but the article itself does describe it as being "swallowed alive" by the female genitalia. If there was a seperate article on unbirth I would suggest merging there but as long as unbirth is part of Vorarephilia I suggest merging it there. Ydam 15:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Vorarephilia. There is no need to have a proliferation of articles on the same subject.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect I guess, as it's apparently real. The things I learn here... --djrobgordon 20:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. I've lost my appetite. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as the article is better than what's currently on Vorarephilia. Ace of Sevens 05:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The picture looks like a hoax, and I have a hard time believing that a grown man can fit his head inside a human vagina. This is complete bullshit. Erik the Rude 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I loath to admit it but a friend of mine showed me a video on his mobile phone of someone doing exactly that so I would say it is possible Ydam 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge I find nothing wrong with it, minus the picture, which IS disturbing and should be removed. This is an information site, of course, so I would find it funny at all to make a board made to delete information. I'm curious about a whole lot of things here, and then I find all these people trying to take it away (no offence). If you find it offencive, do what others have done: put up a warning!

nobody 2:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.9 (talk • contribs).

Comment WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Equendil Talk 12:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, even if it isn't a hoax it's not notable and is too rare.--Andeh 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Redirecting to Vorarephilia seems odd as they are distinct fetishes. Perhaps Insertion fantasy instead?--Kchase02 T 05:03, 18 June 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.