Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabian Goggles

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 DELETE. The severe problem with reliability of any of the sources is grounds enough to delete this and recommend its removal from other articles. I note that the other AfD saw this term for what it was. -Splash^talk 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabian Goggles

This was prodded, but this is the second or third time this article has been created after being speedily deleted. So uncontroversial it is not. On the other hand, I wouldn't speedy it, because this version is much better than the last one I saw. We do have other articles on sex positions, but I don't know if this merits its own article. I'd be inclined to merge with List of sex positions. NickelShoe 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was added to List of sex positions since the last time I checked. I still think leaving a redirect would be okay, though. NickelShoe 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect per NickelShoe. -- Vary | Talk 17:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per NickelShoe. --Terence Ong 17:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of sex positions; it doesn't require an article itself.  (aeropagitica)  17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• The article List of sex positions is too long as it is, indiviual sections would be more appropriate seperate. If Arabian Goggles doesn't get it's own article, Oral Sex should be seperated from the rest, as perhaps should all the other main sections, reducing a massive article into chunks. --Calvin.Giles
• Delete unverified crap; there is no evidence that this is anything but an obscure internet joke, and it shouldn't even be mentioned in existing articles. Melchoir 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverified--Porturology 23:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, nn, WP:WINAD Schizombie 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness to the user who found several references for the article, you guys ought to explain why you find the sources unreliable, at the least so the article creator might avoid similar mistakes in the future. NickelShoe 00:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry, I should have specified that by unverifiable, I meant AG as an actual practice is unverifiable, not that it doesn't exist as a real neologism referring to a presumably novel fictional sex position. Citing to scholarly sex research, or pornos in which this happens would seem to be required for verifiability. Can't say I'd care to see it. Schizombie 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The "references" are just websites without any editorial process. They're not reliable sources. Melchoir 01:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That's all I wanted. :) NickelShoe 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm pretty sure I voted to delete this at least once before. I don't think it's sufficiently notable, even when compared to other obscure/fictitious sexual practices (such as Cleveland steamer). It doesn't have nearly as much of a foothold in popular culture. -Colin Kimbrell 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since you mentioned it, I looked it up under alternate capitalization: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabian goggles. Sure enough, and not so long ago. NickelShoe 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Can this be speedied as CSD G4 then? Incidentally, WP's insistance on Caps sensitivity is annoying. Schizombie 23:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems like it could be, but that seems unreasonable if there are still keep votes. I don't think speedy ought to trump AfD. NickelShoe 00:01, 6 March 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.