Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Autofellatio

< Wikipedia:Requests for deletion | Requests | 2009
Note If you have not already done so, please click here and add {{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Autofellatio}} at the top of the box. Thank you.
Click here to return to the main RfD page.


Autofellatio

change
Autofellatio (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Eptalon (talk) has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

This article has been the cause of some disputes amongst admins, which largely centered on the use of images (now removed), and that there already was consensus to delete the article in another RFD (which I don't find at the moment, probably in 2006, or 2007). I therefore want to ask the community whether they see a potential for this article to be kept and expanded. A search of Google scholar revealed some papers, mainly in the field of psychology and psychiatry; I am not an expert in either field, so I cannot judge if these are pertinent. Please note that I will not vote in this discussion, in order to be able to stay impartial. Also note that this is about keeping or deleting the article, the actions of admins that acted on this article are out of the scope of this vote. Thank you for expressing your opinion.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep as article creator. I only created a stub, to be expanded. As is mentioned above, scholarly sources do exist. They will be added in time. Autofellatio has religious significance, sexual significance and psychological significance, as determined Soup Dish (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep - this is an encyclopaedia. Our aim is to create articles to inform other people. I think no child will use Autofellatio in the search field. Other wikis have such an article too. Barras (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The purpose of this article with the image seems to be exactly to bring about the mega debate we have here, for purposes of being provocative. Very few people want to see this and those who do can find it easily elsewhere. It is also illegal in many countries. Blockinblox - talk 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If that is what you think, then why is it on the English Wikipedia too? Honestly, if they don't want to see it, just don't go to the page. Versus22 talk 22:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be illegal in some countries, but the servers are hosted in the United States and are subject to the laws of the US, where it is legal. Aiuw (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure it's legal in the US. US law protects local community standards; and it cannot be broadcast in public or put on a billboard; access to pornography has to be restricted from children by law. Blockinblox - talk 01:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly legal in the UK, the US is not the only English speaking country. It is also legal in Canada. Parents have the responsibility to monitor their children's viewing of the Internet. It's been around long enough now that parents are aware of what can be viewed on it. Wikipedia is a global site. fr33kman talk 01:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep - Autofellatio is a highly notable subject medically speaking, and socially speaking. Dispite the reams and reams of medical literature about it; it is also the subject of much sexual education and pornographic material (both straight and gay) which regardless of our personal distaste is still a notable use fof it. I can and will add many references for the subject to the article fr33kman talk 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Fr33kman, also per abusive deletion. There was never any consensus to delete this. It's an important subject, no matter how distasteful. Majorly talk 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep This article is about a notable subject and we aren't censored, so this article should remain. Razorflame 22:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral, leaning toward Delete - I'm not sure, but I will say if kept only medical drawings should be used for images.--  † CM16  22:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep per Fr33kman, everyone has different tastes about the article. Also, as Majorly said, this is an important subject. If they don't want to see the images + words, just don't go to the page. Versus22 talk 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-add the image. The censorship of a clearly notable subject is appalling. At last count 15 other Wikipedias include this subject. Aiuw (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at some of the interwiki links. en: solves the problem by putting the tasteless image in a "hide/show" box; that sounds like a good solution for majority English-speaking sensibilities. de: links to a subsection of "fellatio" (without an illustration), and I can also see their reason for that merge, instead of a separate article. The other langs all handle it with a line drawing, except for Swedish (no illustration at all), and Dutch (a less clear photo). None of them have got the tasteless photo in plain sight, except for Russian. Blockinblox - talk 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A good portion of them, including the English Wikipedia, use the actual graphic, not the sketch. I'm apathetic to what image is used. Aiuw (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not when I checked them all about an hour ago. As I said, only the Russian one had it, and the English one had it in a show/hide box. Blockinblox - talk 01:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This hide/show box was only done at 00:15 today, and it has now been undone by another user. I personally thought it wasn't a bad idea, but then I'm only one opinion. fr33kman talk 01:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

change

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Keep. Per WP:SNOW; consensus is clear. –Juliancolton (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC) I have re-opened the discussion; I will close it myself. One of the ideas of having this RFD is to give all named editors a chance to comment; which is certainly not the case if the discussion is SNOWed just under 4 hrs after opening. --Eptalon (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eptalon, please be careful here. Julian was right to close this, and your actions are bordering on wheel warring as well. There is an absolute consensus to keep this article. If you want to discuss the merits of the article, use the talk page, don't flog the dead deletion horse. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Our editors are spread across the globe, While it pretty much looks like a consensus here, I would still like to give all editors a chance to comment. This basically means even if there is a broad consensus, closing and RFD before it has been running 24 hrs is pointless, because it did not give all users the chance to comment. You have said yourself that when taking a decision (in the context of GAs/VGAs), one should look at the points brought forward, and not at the mere number of votes. There is little damage in having this running for a full day, if not a week. This is about legitimation to keep or delete the article in question, which the early closure would not have given. Thank you for raising the issue. --Eptalon (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you are thus determined, can I suggest you re-add the RFD notice to the page in question then as a lot of our global editors don't ever visit RFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-added the tag. --Eptalon (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Kept - As you can see, consensus is there; and by now everyone had a chance to comment.--Eptalon (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2009/Autofellatio&oldid=8871472"