Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cum fart

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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cum fart

  • Delete Gimme a break. I think it is a nonsensical argument that because this activity exists in pornography it should have an entry in an encylcopedia. Not every sexual fetish deserves an unique article (complete with drawing). C'mon people. Maybe this should be a brief description on a sexual fetish page or something. It cant be an article by itself. Consider that there are no articles on "squeezing zits". This is an activity that many teenagers and adults do too. Would anyone think that is a worthwhile encyclopedia entry?

Specifically though, cum fart is more dicdef than anything else. Moreover, it is a made up term used by the pornography industry to market particular types of porn. This term cannot be cross-referenced. It is more of an advertising gimmick than anything else. Dec 19, 2005

  • nnslang term Target for vandals, as well as already covered under creampie Reid A. 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I dont quite see how this information betters anyone..... How many people type 'cum fart' into a search engine? NightOwl91 10:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going to hazard a guess here. But someone who is looking at porn and sees one of the strange words that they use and goes "What the hell is this?", and then realises that typing "Cum fart" in to a search engine leaves them with nothing but spam so they go to see if Wikipedia can help them out. "Ah thank god I finally know what that means", they say. Of course, if you're not looking at porn, you're probably not going to worry about this kind of thing. Nobody looks at porn do they? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This is not encyclopedic by any stretch of the imagination. Crotalus horridus 03:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete No excuse for this --Ryan Delaney talk 03:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I don't think this qualifies for CSD G1 (unfortunately). Jamie 04:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Somone has made creampie into a redirect, suggest undoing that and redirecting this there.--nixie 04:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (with some editing). I don't see why it's not encyclopedic. Or maybe just merge into creampie. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 04:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete because it's a neologism. That's why it's not encylopedic. karmafist 04:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has LOTS of neologisms in it. How is that criteria for deletion? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - very common use in the pornography industry. Whilst a redirect to creampie would be reasonable, as there is no actual article about creampie (it talks about a cream pie) then this article should remain. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: disgusting. If vandals mess with Latin should we delete that?
    • No, but I for one have some standards. Keep. --Agamemnon2 07:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Personal tastes really shouldn't dictate what articles are kept and what are deleted. The decision here should be based upon whether there really is a thing known as a cum fart — i.e. whether such a sexual phenomenon has been researched, discussed, and documented by reliable sources. (The article doesn't cite such sources, or indeed any sources at all.) Uncle G 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Jesus. Excuse me while I go wash my brain now. Delete on general principle. Herostratus 06:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or perhaps merge with (the non-redirected version of) Creampie. The concept is notable. I do think the picture is gross, but that's not a good reason to eliminate the article. Blackcats 07:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: By nominating this article for deletion I am not commenting on the Principle of it, but rather the fact that it is already covered and is a not necessary second-Reid A.
    • Where is it already covered? Creampie does not exist, as it is merely a redirect to a type of pie. If this already existed in Creampie, then a redirect would be obviously the way to go. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay sorry, the redirect has been reverted. We can redirect it now. Its quite a well known term, although creampie is the more common way of talking about it. Oh, and this should not be confused with cunt fart (aka pussy fart) which is totally different to cum fart. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article cites no sources that can be used to verify that this is indeed what a cum fart is. I've looked for sources, but I'm stymied by the fact that searches turn up reams of keyword stuffing web pages (some even on U.S. government web sites) that are filled with long lists of pornographic keywords and no actual content. As such, the article is unverifiable. There may be something known as a cum fart, and this may be it. (Conversely, this may be just a meaningless phrase that the keyword stuffers in the Internet pornography industry add to their lists simply because people search for it.) But without sources it is impossible to verify. Delete. Uncle G 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I am not sure that a cum fat is the same as a creampie. A creampie is when a man's semen is left inside a vagina (or anus), while a cum fart is the act of squirting it out. Therefore they are complimentary, but are not the same term, and hence a redirect is inappropriate. I will see if I can look it up. By the way, creampie is much more commonly used. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I know this is a bit disgusting to some, but here is a review of the title "Cum Fart Cocktails", which I think describes the topic: [1]. In other words, yes, it is a real term. You also might be interesting in reading Adulf Friend Finder's definition of what a cum fart is [2]. Also, here is a whole range of "cum fart" porn videos: [3] (i.e. it is a category of pornography). The question should be whether to keep or merge with creampie, since many people seem to use the two words interchangeably, but not everyone does. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Editor 70.112.87.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been through this page changing votes. I have reverted but s/he may be back. ESkog | Talk 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL - I note that some of these porn articles (or sexual articles) seem to get more vandals than anyone else. But why an AFD? That's just silly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Whats an AFD?(nevermind i got it Article for Deletion) and no i did not do all the vandalizing i noticed other people did some too all the time anyway Ive quit but you should know that u still havent fixed the pages completeley. Even I have standards - Vandal
  • Weak keep could be useful to some.  Grue  21:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep in some form. Maybe we can start a "list of common pornographic sex acts" and merge it there? or come up with a more encyclopedic title and redirect? Anyway, it is an extremely common pornographic sex act that deserves mention in wp. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 20:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep it. It's amazing that this behavious exists, and I don't condone it, but since it exists, it may as well be documented.

  • comment-I can't believe I am getting into this but as I understand it, a cum fart can't happen without a creampie being there first. Therefor it should be mentioned under creampie and doesnt deserve its own article.-Reid A. 22:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete this garbage I can't imagine how in God's name this disgusting article will help anybody, not counting perverts. Please delete this trash.

  • Keep. This is a real practice that deserves an article, regardless of whether some find it unsettling. Draeco 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is defining a term. Is this a dictionary?How about one page on sex acts and just link to them. or move to wiktionaryObina 00:49, 20 December 2005 (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.