Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cum fart (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was Merge and redirect to Oral sex. Since this AfD is for Cum fart, I am only merging that article. Anyone wishing to merge and redirect felching, creampie, or queef don't need an AfD to do so. Deathphoenix 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cum fart

Delete. Does not warrant an article. Was probably created as a result of inappropriate redlinking. No encyclopidic value, can be described in one sentence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.246.247 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-20 18:34:57.

Fixing improperly transincluded nomination. No vote. — Adrian Lamo ·· 03:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep Obscene? Definately. Notable? A little bit. Encyclopedic? It walks the line. Bobby1011 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscenity. - Sikon 04:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Obscenity is not a criterion for deletion. — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Obscenity is not a criterion for article deletion, but articles cannot have obscene titles. As I understand, the subject of the article is spoken about somewhere else. Smashy. - Sikon 13:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe move to EncyclopediaDramatica:Cum fart. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought thanswiki can only apply to sister projects. - Sikon 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable term, has 114,000 hits in Google, but if you remove "cocktail" from the search, get just over 50,000. Too few to be significant. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
50,000 google hits is actually fairly significant :) — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • merge with felching, creampie and queef into Oral sex. AnAn 04:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't anal sex be a more appropriate merge target? BD2412 T 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • for semantical issues, queef and felching cannot be merged with oral sex. A queef is purely vaginal, and felching can be either vaginal or anal. Charangito 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • merge with creampie Night Gyr 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WINAD or merge per above suggestions, or transwiki to Wiktionary Schizombie 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vulgar dicdef. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As much as I do not think much of this being in an encyclopedia if it is a delete so should Fart be - both should therefore be delete or both merge as per WP:WINAD image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per AnAn. --Johnnyw 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per AnAn. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. For argument's sake, we have an article called "blow job" which links to Oral sex. Time to wash my fingers. --Jay(Reply) 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. 1) Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for children or people with two molecules of good taste to rub together. 2) The talk page is much better than the article IMO -- that should be saved somewhere.Herostratus 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • BJAODN the talk page if you must. - Sikon 13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, the talk page is definitely better than the article! Schizombie 07:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah I BJAODN'd an excerpt of the talk page. Herostratus
  • Delete. Votes to keep a worthless article purely because 'Wikipedia is not censored' are inappropriate. Proto||type 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to creampie. AFAIR, the latter already survived VfD.  Grue  18:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - there should be some standard of encyclopeadic, and a daresay this would miss the cut (pun not entirely intended) – Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to creampie as per  Grue  Charangito 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Fact is (no matter how distasteful to some) this is a sociological phenomenum (as fetishism) and should be cataloged, examined, and presented in a factual and unbiased manner, not deleted. Charangito 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • But is it a BIG enough phenomenum to warrent its own article?? C'mon people there should even be this discussion.
  • Smashy, per Sikon. A fellow on the article's talk page makes a good point (edited): [Caps Lock ON] Surely you are jesting, good sirs. Who [on earth] wrote this article? Is not Wikipedia, in countenancing the continued existence of articles such as this, in effect, when it asks our good patrons for donations, asking for money so that more [similar material of less-than-scholarly value] can be created? Also, consider 1) the encyclopedia value of the article (which is distinctly limited IMO) vs. the problems that it brings, viz., in addition to being unsourced, marginally notable at best, and generally all-round offensive, envision the interview segment that begins "But Mr. Wales, what is this article on Cum fart here, where does that fit into your philosophy?" Herostratus 20:55, 28 February 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.