Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuntbusting

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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:04Z

[edit] Cuntbusting

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

This article cites no reliable sources, and concerns an apparently non-notable sexual activity. John254 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, no reliable sources, reads like a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NEO.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as probable neologism, and not attributing the sources used to create the article. Kyra_~(talk) 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds plausible but an unreferenced neologism is an unreferenced neologism. Deiz talk 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Groin attack. Sounds as if it exists, but needs citation. Citation lack is not critical enough to merit deletion rather than tagging with "citation needed." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless adequate independent references can be found by the end of this debate. Seems to be a neologism too, but I'm not sure as I'm not a fan of S&M. I shall also say that reading this article made me feel queasy, but that, of course, is not a reason to delete. WMMartin 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Honestly, what the fuck? How has this article managed to survive for so long (since August 14, 2006) with the only source being that of a Yahoo message board? RFerreira 08:03, 1 March 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.