Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autoanilingus

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. Mailer Diablo 14:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoanilingus

WP:WINAD "Autoanilingus" gets 21 Google hits, with Wikipedia at #1. There's no assertion that this act is even possible. I transwikied it to wiktionary, where it was promptly deleted. Brian G. Crawford 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• transwiki if verifiable. If not, Delete --Bachrach44 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 20 Google hits, meaning this thing can't ever become be as valid as the similar articles even if it were to be expanded. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Шизомби 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Google displays only 4 unique hits excluding WP. Accurizer 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Thankfully impossible unless you have a neck like an ostrich's. Down the -atory with it. Anthony Appleyard 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Someone performing this may be notable enough for Wikipedia, though (sorry, couldn't resist). -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Of course it's possible. Regular activity as far as dogs are concerned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.144.161.234 (talk • contribs) .
• REDIRECT to anilingus, as it's a form of anilingus. 132.205.45.148 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• wikt:Transwiki:Autoanilingus shows nothing -- I thought even if a sister project deleted a page, they were not supposed to delete the Transwiki namespace version of the page? Also, nothing shows up in Wiktionary's deletion log for either the mainspace or the transwiki space. Anyways, if it's been transwikied already, at least the dicdef template should go. As for my opinion on this AfD, delete, since transwiki appears to have been tried already. TheProject 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Have just transwikied, just to be safe. TheProject 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • comment nom claims to have transwikied, but it was deleted. Roodog2k 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete I think a little common sense is in order. I believe that nom makes the perfect case for deletion. Tongue-in-cheek, yes, dogs lick their asses. A human sex act, methinks no... Roodog2k 23:50, 3 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.