Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oral stimulation of nipples

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 keep. John254 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oral stimulation of nipples

Oral_stimulation_of_nipples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Breast fetishism,erotic lactation and oral sex cover this already. Creator vandalized a page with link to this article after creation of article. Wikipedia not being censored does not prove this article should be on here. In most cases the lack of censorship does not even break even.Wikipedia is not a vote or poll. This is a debate YVNP 10:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It fits at Category:Oral eroticism. it is referenced as well. No harm about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Previous AfD when article was at a different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipple sucking. Deor 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We have articles for cunnilingus, fellatio, anal-oral contact, even autofellatio and teabagging. This article is in keeping with the other articles of the category. Contrary to the nominator's claims, this article is not redundant. It's a notable subject, and it's well cited...I think it could use a bit of expansion, but I see no grounds for deletion. Calgary 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, referenced and truly valid, "different" enough to stand out on its own and not redundant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If a bad-faith vandal happens to create an encyclopedic topic that was missing before, that's not a reason to delete the topic. It's not about who created the article; it's about what the article is.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We went through this for substantially the same article less than a month ago. AFD is not a kiddie carnival game of "Pitch til you win." It could be better referenced to the Kinsey Reports or Masters and Johnson, but oral stimulation of the breasts is a common sexual practice either by itself or as a part of foreplay. It is certainly not considered "oral sex." It occurs exclusive of being a fetish and exclusive of "erotic lactation." WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, because Wikipedia is not censored. Conservapedia is, and they do not even allow articles about the existence of "naughty" body parts, so it is there as a safe place for people to read about things without finding any shocking discussion of oral stimulation of breasts. Edison 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. This is a properly sourced, common and notable sexual practice that deserves encyclopedic attention. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide, whether the how to is putting up shelves or this. Golfcam 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is not a how-to guide even in the broadest definition. Simply defining an act, its attributes, and practitioners is not how-to content. The article doesn't give any advice on the practice. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Response If an article is about a specific action, a description of the action is not the same as being a detailed description. In addition, all information in this article that may be considered a "how-to" is both necessary for the article to make any sense, and does not go into heavy or unnecessary detail. By the same rationale you're presenting here the following excerpt, taken from Sexual intercourse, could be considered a how-to:

"To engage in coitus, the erect penis is inserted into the vagina and one or both of the partners move their hips to move the penis backward and forward inside the vagina to cause friction, typically without fully removing the penis. In this way, they stimulate themselves and each other, often continuing until highly pleasurable orgasm in either or both partners is achieved."

Yes, oral stimulation of the nipples might not be as common or significant as coitus, but it's still notable enough to warrant it's own article, and that being said, given the context, there is nothing inappropriate about the material. Calgary 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Cleduc 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. Properly soureced, and common sexual practice. I really don't see the issue. CraigMonroe 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per my previous !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipple sucking. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think this article could be licked into shape. ~ Infrangible 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment That would make a clean breast of any POV problems. Edison 19:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  But at the moment, the article sucks and would be able to grow properly if merged into human sexual behavior. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Edison. This is notable (in an unfortunate way) and has nothing to do with oral sex. Giggy _U^CP 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Human sexual behavior to let the topic develop properly. Once developed, it may be spunout if needed. Foreplay is not the right article for the merge since not all oral stimulation of nipples is for sexual purpose (see, e.g., breastfeeding).-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:01, 14 July 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.