Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double vaginal, double anal

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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double vaginal, double anal

Impossible sex act. It's a prominent joke in the movie Orgazmo and the source of the name for Trey Parker and Matt Stone's band DVDA, but it doesn't need its own article. Brian G. Crawford 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep its a valid term.
• Merge into DVDA (band). --Rory096_(block) 01:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep could probably use more sources. It's probably notable enough purely for its role as the band's etymology and for its pop-culture references in addition to being notable as a sex act.Cheapestcostavoider 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Stone and Parker do not confer instant notability on every neologism / piece of sexual slang they coin. A short description on the "band" page will be just dandy. Deizio 01:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm pretty sure they didn't coin this. I mean, it shows up in descriptions of pornographic films all the time. A Google search yields something like 70K hits just for "double vaginal, double anal." There are a number of pornos that use DVDA in the title.[1], [2]. This is at least as widespread as a lot of the other sexual slang already here.Cheapestcostavoider 03:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to DVDA (band), merge as appropriate. Perhaps not physically impossible, but certainly not a sex act of any social significance and definitely uncomfortable. -- Kjkolb 02:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider.--Andrew c 02:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per Rory/Kjkolb. It is already mentioned on List of sex positions. -Dawson 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider.--Rpresser 04:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per above. Failing that, Keep. VegaDark 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider. SorryGuy 05:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per above. --Quiddity 05:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a stupid concept but that doesn't disqualify it from staying. - Richardcavell 09:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per folks above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This sexual position may be rare or even mythological, but if the term is fairly common (see Google) and if it deserves some discussion, it belongs here, and NOT just as a South Park or band reference. Besides, I went to Wikipedia just now to look up DVDA to find out where this term came from and whether or not this act is even physically possible (results of my search: inconclusive, but articles can grow).

172.149.64.186 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Cheapestcoastavoider. --Terence Ong 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic content Maltesedog 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the band article. 23skidoo 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. dbtfz^talk 18:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merge if someone really wants to, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. Tuf-Kat 22:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider. It may make me want to scream in pain to even think about this position, but it's worth keeping around. As for those claiming "nonencyclopedic content," I really don't think that's a good reason to delete. Delete for notability, verifiability, copyvio, or patent nonsense, but not because you don't like that it's included in the encyclopedia. There's plenty of material in Wikipedia that wouldn't belong in a traditional encyclopedia, because Wikipedia is not paper.Captainktainer 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as weird nonsense type stuff... M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know what you mean by "weird nonsense type stuff." It's obviously not an orthodox sex position, but it's pretty well known and featured in pop culture as well as countless pornographies. -Cheapestcostavoider 01:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? This sex act is not even physically possible, and I made that clear in my nomination. Double vaginal is possible. Double anal is possible. Double vaginal and double anal at the same time is impossible. It's nothing but a joke. The movies are named DVDA because they feature double vaginal and double anal, but not at the same time. Your comments in this discussion indicate that you clearly don't understand that the structure of the human body prevents anyone from actually doing this. Countless pornographies (sic)? I found only two. In pop culture? Only in Parker/Stone projects. This is supposed to be a general interest encyclopedia, not a Trey Parker and Matt Stone fansite. Brian G. Crawford 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect per above.Chart123 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, per nom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Reference better, though. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Merge, or Redirect this info doesn't deserve to totally deleted. if you can't find a better page to put it on then leave it be.Geedubber 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider. Since it is a pop culture term, albeit perhaps in very narrow usage, and it is a distinct and known term with it's own applicable information, it should have it's own page. Although it is far from being a general interest subject, it nonetheless has information that can be written on it. Not all articles in an encyclopedia are of interest to everybody, nor should they be.-- Rayshaw 13:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Unfortunately. Startup account 20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While Wikipedia should not be censored, it should not become a repository for any smut that takes someone's fancy. - Runcorn 21:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of sex positions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 27 April 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.