Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickhole fucking

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dickhole fucking

Not notable. Nonsense.-- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

• Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello July 7, 2005 07:58 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. Xoloz 7 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

*Delete: as above. Seeaxid 7 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)See below. Seeaxid 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - three Google hits. Fuzheado | Talk 7 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
• Delete, Absoloute crap, it could exist, but this isn't a pornographic magazine. Klmjordan 7 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

  You're right that we are not a pornographic magazine in that, they would contain exclusively sex-related topics (in a certain style), whereas an 'encyclopedia', is a "literary work giving information on all [my bold] branches of knowledge [...]" — from the concise OED. -- Seeaxid 15:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete At very least, rewrite and rename, assuming there are sources. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
• Delete Admitted vanity neologism. Nuff said -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

PS: The edit link for this vote does not work correctly. I had to edit out "section=1" from the URL in order to edit. -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

Hopefully it will work now. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

• Delete Utterly ridiculous Cyclone49 7 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
• Delete. F this D article. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
• Delete: Neolo. --ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
• Delete; neologism, probable vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Delete Stankdawg as well as vanity. Ground Zero 7 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

• I'd support a delete on this article ("stankdawg") as vanity. I've never heard of the person, and I've been in the business a long time. Article quality is low and largely vanity. But of course it needs to go through a vfd. Avriette 20:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense. Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. First of all, sounds physically impossible; failing that, sounds painful and dangerous, and... um... quite frankly, disgusting. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 8 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)
  • Check out the video if you don't think it's possible. Pigger
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
• Redirect to a more appropriate title. Delete Need I say more? Even if this actually does occur, which I highly doubt, Dickhole Fucking is a rather crude, offensive way to define it. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  • If you follow one of the links in the linked-to forum thread you'll find a highly X-rated clip of it in action. I kid you not. How widespread (or not) it is is another matter... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
    • Ouch... even thinking about that happening makes me wince in pain Cyclone49 9 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not something I'd practice myself, or anything I could say particularly interests me, but since it appears people do actually engage in this practice, I'm changing my vote to Redirect to a more appropriate title. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 10:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete- though detailed in description (lol)--Bhadani 05:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the clip, as suggested above is accurate, however do we actually need this here? The text itself is just newsgroup lore. Not every word on the internet need be entered as an important piece of human history. ColoradoZ 05:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a shocklog. We don't need entries for every single fetish humanly fathomable. Aecis 15:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a very important topic, but I agree that the article is utter crap and needs to be improved. For example, is there a way for me to upload a dickhole fucking video? Pigger 08:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, posted a link to a video.
• Delete.Very not encyclopedic nor useful.--Jondel 08:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. I am quite fond of this activity, and would like a place to find more information about it. Wikipedia is that place. JacksonBrown 09:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • removed vote readded by Pigger
  • I was the one who initially removed the vote; after discussion with Pigger, I believe it should stay. -- Essjay · Talk 12:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably exists, but pretty non-notable. If absolutely necessary to keep, find a more appropriate name to redirect to. --Psyk0 12:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  'Urethral pentration' perhaps? Seeaxid 14:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, completely ridiculous. --Merovingian (t) (c) 14:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking up urethral penetration, the only non-pornographic site that mentioned it (names it vaguely and that is all) is here: http://www.fairfield.edu/x1965.html. In this statement here (my bold):

  Sexual assault occurs when a person performs or compels another person to perform any sexual act or to have any form of sexual contact without consent. Rape is a specific kind of sexual assault that involves any vaginal, oral, anal, or urethral penetration with any body part or object without consent.

• Seeaxid 14:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the page List_of_sexology_topics#U, lists 'urethral self-instrumentation' as a topic, which if put into google, surprisingly gives results from actual information sources (although not necessarily sexual). Accordingly I now would say move and redirect to urethral self-instrumentation . Seeaxid 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

And of course, rewrite , because I'm not so sure about the notability of the references made, and certainly statements such as this: "stretching of a male's penis hole, allowing another male's penis [...] to be inserted for sexual stimulation." are questionable. In its current state it is more an article regarding a neologism than a practice. Seeaxid 15:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Note that 'urethral self-instrumentation' is also listed as a requested article, at: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Sexuality,_Sexology,_Urology_and_Gynecology. Seeaxid 15:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is an uncommon, but extant sexual practice. There are more sites, which mostly cater to a "medical play" crowd. I'm in favor of the article being deleted because it is of garbage quality, is vanity, and has nothing really to do with the subject it claims to be about. Avriette 20:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm not particularly interested in reading the site, there's another article which is probably more appropriate to this vfd. 72.254.11.245 01:45, 14 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.