Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furtling

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 keep. --Ezeu 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furtling

This is a dictionary definition, and I have serious doubts that it can be expanded. The book cited is a 64 page picture book that aids the reader in furtling. I really don't think there's much to say about putting your fingers through holes in pictures to simulate naughty bits. If somebody could expand it into an encyclopedia article, that would be fine with me, but I don't think that can be done. Brian G. Crawford 17:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm the one who wikified the stub after it was added last year, and the one who remove the prod tag added by Brian. That said, I have no particular objection to having it nominated on AfD and, should the consensus be such, deleted. I do maintain that this seems to be an encyclopedic subject — as in, covered, however briefly, by at least one print encyclopedia — and that it could be expanded. I haven't personally seen either of the books cited (save for the online version), and have no idea where I might be able to find them if I were to go looking for them. Nonetheless, someone could do that, and presumably someone might be able to locate other references to the subject. In the mean time, the article in its present form is doing no harm to Wikipedia. Deleting it, though insignificant in the grand scheme if things, would nonetheless be a net loss for the encyclopedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete to dic. Newyorktimescrossword 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, this is something that's somewhat significant culturally, and could easily be expanded. Plus, this ever-constant crusade against anything sexual is getting out of hand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on a crusade against sexual topics. If you think I am, then you're wrong. Brian G. Crawford 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & expand I suppose. I guess we can't expect an article on a victorian custom to expand very quickly. Maybe start with just giving a couple significant examples? Or say where it happened mostly? At least that would move it beyond being a dic. def. JeffBurdges 11:10, 9 May 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.