Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autosodomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was Speedy delete and JUPE'd. — xaosflux Talk 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autosodomy

Autosodomy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Why repress this article? It is a documented practice. 208.81.93.142 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a neologism. There are no hits on pubmed (autofellatio has 4). Google hits seem to be predominantly for an "urban dictionary" (a site similar to Wikipedia in accepting public edits, but with no verification requirements). The external link is to a page depicting autofellatio.

The article has recently been speedy deleted several times, and recreated [1]. I proposed its deletion as a "neologism with minimal currency" yesterday and this was supported by one other person but the tag has been removed. Therefore I bring it here. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was one of those who previously requested it be speedied, and was in the process of creating this AfD myself before User:Tony Sidaway beat me to it. Pretty much as per nominee and anonymous IP on the article's talk page; the references are either unreliable or aren't what they're purported to be, and unlike pretty much any other kind of sexual behaviour, it gets virtually no Googlehits. --DeLarge 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt, nonsense and above reasons Mikm 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt/protect. "Neologism" is putting it rather kindly. Andrew Lenahan 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt Unsourced neologism. Urban dictionary can never be used as a source, let alone the only source. Leebo 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    To clarify: in view of the continual recreations, I do agree that salting may be a good course of action here. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and add special seasonings, does not pass muster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect, no reliable sources to establish existence, let alone notability. NawlinWiki 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt - absurdity, in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemo (talk • contribs) ---03:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oh I knew there was something niggling me about this word. I just remembered what is was. When I was a young chap I used to like the works of Salvador Dali, and as it happens one of my favorites was this fetching nude titled "Young Virgin Autosodomized by Her Own Chastity." So it isn't such a neologism as one might think. However Dali was famous for his use of odd made-up words and quasi-joycean mixed-language sentences in his public utterances. Note here that the sense of autosodomy here is not that given in the article. The young lady here obviously has no penis with which to penetrate her rectum. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Retain and expand. It is sexist and homophobic to suppress information about this yogic practice.DavidYork71 05:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment How is deleting this homophobic or sexist? Unless you are able to provide sources, I don't see how this isn't nonsense. mikm 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's both because sodomy exists for partner-inclusive and traditional male-female sodomy, and also because autocunnilingus exists here to acknowledge a similar female-specific practice.DavidYork71 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt as it is unsourced, and User:DavidYork71 is now actively inserting it (sorry, couldn't help it) on pages such as Yoga and Yoga as exercise which could be construed as pornographic vandalism. See: [2] [3] Buddhipriya 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Buddhipriya... this editor's behavior probably will need review in another forum as well. (→Netscott) 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt I don't know all the ins of this process and don't intend to learn them, but I think this article should be deleted for reasons given above, and I am tempted to begin excising references to it in other articles (such as in Sodomy) wether or not it's deleted. I just checked and have discovered that most of these references have already been deleted.
  • Well it's unreasonable to have an article for every definition on urbandictionary.com. I notice there is no article for thesbian (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thesbian) even though there are a lot more people who seem to think it means something than for autosodomy. So I suggest that before user DavidYork continues trying to inform wikipedia users about the marvels of autosodomy, he first begin with all the words at the Urban dictionary which have more up-thumbs than it does.
  • Also the suggestion that the practice is 'yogic' is absurd as I mentioned on the talk page; all suggestions that it is yogic within wikipedia were originated by DavidYork very recently. 142.151.162.247 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JuJube 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt Orderinchaos 08:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Axl 10:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I speedied this, and i would still delete. jimfbleak 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Merbabu 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom SatuSuro 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to sodomy as parent article. Stop suppressing illustrative content and referring to this yoga as a 'purported' practice. It's proven and demonstrated .. for the few, the brave .. not for all.203.166.99.249 09:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Remind those "brave" people that they're going to have to publish their exploits in reliable sources before we write an article about it. Leebo T/C 10:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is an unsupported claim regarding the photograph that it is a yoga activity performed by a "yogi" but there is no documentation proving those assertions. The picture is taken from a porn site, not a Yoga Institute. The issue is not just about the sexual activity, but the claim of this being a yogic practice. Wikipedia:Pornography establishes precedents for removal of pornographic pictures. Buddhipriya 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly not a yogic practice and the text fails any possible WP:RS test... DanielT5 22:37, 3 April 2007 (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.