Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden enema

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definition, not sourced, notability questionable. This was proposed for deletion and contested. Do we really need an article for every different liquid substance that people choose to force into their bowels? Brian G. Crawford 00:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOT/WINAD. Royboycrashfan 00:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No. No, we do not. --Deville (Talk) 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as sexual slang dicdef. Please let's not be Enemapedia. -- Mithent 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Really unnecessary. -- Tangotango 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with others. (Now I have to go blind my mind's eye.) Bucketsofg 01:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with others. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Klismaphilia YellowPigNowNow 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. EsonLinji 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Wikpedia is not a dictionary. --Terence Ong 09:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Klismaphilia Prometheus^-X303- 16:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, pass the Brain Brillo. Elkman - ^(talk) 19:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and not notable enough a paraphilia to be merged with Klismaphilia. JoshuaZ 22:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. That's where dicdefs are supposed to go, you know. --Rory096 22:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 637 Google hits, and not just mirrors of this site, this term is clearly in use. However, I agree with the above that this may not be worth a stand-alone article suggest merge and redirect with klismaphilia. -- The Anome 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 637 is almost none for a generic term, and this is a sex term. If something is at all a notable paraphilia it will have easily 1000s of google hits. As an example, I just googled "zombie rape" and got over 10,000 hits.JoshuaZ 00:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Right up there with "grapefruit juice enema." Fishhead64 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Icarus 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipeida is not the urban dictionary. --MrFizyx 22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.