User:Saizai/Autocoitus/undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Autocoitus

Autocoitus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No time given to respond to speedy delete; last revision of the page was sourced, verifiable, substantially relevant (as much as autofellatio). Neologism accusation in previous VfD is irrelevant, since the article is about a *practice* rather than the word itself; 'autocoitus' is simply a more encyclopedically appropriate term than the standard 'self-fucking'. Sai Emrys 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the deletion is sustained, I ask an admin to post the content of Autocoitus as of its last revision before the speedy delete to User:saizai/Autocoitus for my archival use, since I don't have access to it, there isn't a gcache copy, and I don't want to look for the links again in case it comes up later. Thanks. --Sai Emrys 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Got it myself; never mind. --Sai Emrys 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically responding to the various issues brought up in last VfD, and referring to the most recent revision:

  • Reliable sources - Amateur porn is a reliable source for whether a sex practice is conducted or not. Additionally, the article at last revision had other (text) sources, e.g. LPSG.org threads.
  • Claimed impossibility WP:PN - The sources cited conclusively prove otherwise. If the editors voting for deletion on this ground were not inclined to view that proof, that is their problem and not one of the credibility of the source.
  • Neologism WP:NEO - Irrelevant. The article is about a practice, not the word itself. Also, see pegging and santorum; they are sexual neologisms but nevertheless kept.
  • Censorship / revulsion - Irrelevant and inappropriate reason to delete on Wikipedia; it is a sexual act and can sustain an article just as much as autofellatio, anal sex, pegging, scat / coprophilia, etc. Yes many people will find it offensive or unpleasant. So what?
  • ghits - Autocoitus = 65 (not 15 as claimed in VfD); self-fucking = 19,200; selffucking (no space) = 6,360; selffuck (no space) = 16,100; self-fuck = 33,100, including many forum threads about the practice.
  • Rename - I'm fine with renaming the article to something like self-fucking. Autocoitus is simply the most obvious clinical term. Best would be to have one redirect to the other.
  • Notability WP:N:
    • "Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.
    • "Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
      • Multiple sources cited.
    • "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
      • Sources cited all specifically about the topic.
    • "Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
      • Ergo Pornotube and [lpsg.org] sources are perfectly legit
    • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
      • In this case there is no need to rely on the honesty of the sources, since they are self-proving.
    • "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
      • AFAIK this is not an issue here --Sai Emrys 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "Ridiculous" is not an argument. Are you claiming that it is impossible or a joke page? --Sai Emrys 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, AfD was closed properly. In addition, there were absolutely no sources. PornoTube is not a reliable source. This may require a speedy close as the nomination pretty much defeats itself - we require that something be attributable to reliable sources as defined in WP:RS, not that something simply exists. --Coredesat 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Pornotube was not the only source listed in the article. Additionally, it *is* a reliable first-hand source, given that it is not being used as some sort of social commentary but as documentation of a sexual practice. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No it isn't. Neither is LPSG. --Coredesat 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • "... in some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed," - this is one of those cases. This is not a case of citing a YouTube discussion as authoritative source for what they're discussing, but of citing primary source evidence for the viability and existence of the practice the article discusses. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. You've managed to conclusively prove that it exists and is possible, and nothing else. That is not an encyclopedia article. -Amarkov moo! 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • On what grounds exactly? If it's something I addressed above please refute my comments rather than just reasserting it. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, compare to autocunnilingus, which isn't even known to be possible. --Sai Emrys 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not clear from the history, but I gather this was speedied after it had passed an AfD. IOf so there is no need of dicussion--it'sd out of process and should be reversed without further ado. But if this was an original speedy, it still is a total abuse of Speedy--speedy is for non-controversial deletions. If it seems obvious thaqt a deletion will be argued in good faith, the only place appropriate is AfD. If one even suspect it might, then possibly prod. This is not the place to debate the merits, AfD is the place to debate the merits, and if one wishes to argue against notability, that's where it should have gone. I look forward to debating it there. Speedy overturn recommended.DGG 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
But I mention a point of confusion: whether it is physically possible is irrelevant. Notable fantasies are Notable, or do we eliminate all fiction entirely? WP is not the place to debate anatomy.DGG 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the consensus at its AfD was clearly delete. The newest version that was speedied was almost identical to the version that was discussed in that AfD. Just wanted to clear that up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please use this version for comparison. Note multiple sources. Last revised edition had sources edited out for unspecified reasons without responding to the discussion about that on its talk page. --Sai Emrys 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Administrators: please give the same partial undelete to its Talk page as is on the main page, and post a link to the most recent revision here for reference (per above). Thanks. --Sai Emrys 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. BUT! I would say don't salt this... yet. The article is along the same lines as Autofellatio, Autocunnilingus, etc., and it's only a matter of time before a reliable source writes about the act and it becomes notable in the Wikipedia sense. And so, it *might* belong on Wikipedia in the future, but as we all know, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- therefore, as of right now, internet forums and videos do not qualify as reliable sources, and it should remain deleted until actual Wiki-endorced sources emerge. Rockstar915 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus was read entirely correctly at the AfD, and not a single reliable source has been added to the article since it was recreated by the original author. Sorry, but 3 guys fucking themselves on pornotube does not an encyclopedic article make. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/i/User%7ESaizai_Autocoitus_undeletion_3fae.html"