Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipple sucking

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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple sucking

The title of the article makes it obvious what the subject matter is. The article was recently created by a new user with 3 contributions. It was unreferenced original research until I added some references. I could probably add more references but I'm just not sure that this is a valid encyclopedia topic. The content could be merged. I just don't know, so I'm asking for consensus here. Oh yeah and nothing links to it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disgusting. Violates WP:PORN.--Edtropolis 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not censored. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that you find a normal and widely-practiced sexual activity disgusting and worthy of suppression. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you; there are other wikis out there which may better suit your worldview. —Psychonaut 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The last comment by Psychonaut was not called for. Edtropolis is welcome to contribute here and saying that his or her "worldview" is not appropriate for Wikipedia is completely ridiculous. Comments like these do not make new users feel welcome.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I didn't notice that Edtropolis was a new user. I did look at his contributions, which are mostly AfD !votes, and assumed that he was familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:CENSOR, and other policies which make his !vote rationale completely inappropriate. Edtropolis, since you are evidently a new user, I apologize and withdraw the second sentence of my comment. But please consider editing Wikipedia for a while before diving into AfDs, so that you can familiarize yourself with our conventions and learn what are and are not acceptable rationales for deletion. —Psychonaut 11:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoo boy. I'm sure that I'm going to catch nine different kinds of hell for recommending this, but here goes: Merge to foreplay. Groupthink 13:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:PORN is just an essay, not a policy or guideline. Your delete vote smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is thus invalid. Groupthink's suggestion seems to be a better one: merge and redirect. Also, if you think mere nipple sucking is disgusting, then I dread to hear what you think about such articles as donkey punch, cleveland steamer, anal torture, urethral play, rusty trombone which I find truly revolting. I don't find nipple sucking disgusting at all.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As George Carlin once infamously observed: "Betcha can't eat just one!" ;-) Groupthink 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I had to google that just to find out what you were talking about.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encylopedic (if not more so) that the aforementioned cleveland steamer and rusty trombone! Lugnuts 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But yeah, this is a much more normal and common sexual practise than either of those two, and you can't really argue with me on that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the "Dirty Bristow" comment on the rusty trombone article is the funniest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia! Lugnuts 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment that's irrelevant to this debate, and anyway although that slang term seems to be in use it isn't referenced to WP:RS and may be a WP:BLP violation although I've left it for the moment.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - gonna remove it per WP:BLP on second thoughts. Back to the nipple sucking debate please.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just as encyclopedic as other articles we have on much stranger sex techniques. These have been subject to many AFDs ending in keep, especially donkey punch, so OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really apply. Given the limited time, I'm willing to keep it with expectation of expansion as more and better sources turn up. I'm comfortable with merging to foreplay, as well.--Chaser - T 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a merger into foreplay might be difficult as that article is in a poor state just now anyway, and having a huge section about nipple sucking might seem strange.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. True, Wikipedia may have things like this under this rule, but this article is something else. It is gross and will be a vandalism target. What if the if the article was just made by a vandal? Astrale01^talk_contribs 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A reminder, we are not censored. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an article is a encyclopedic topic, it should be kept, no matter who created the article. I'm trying to ascertain here whether it is encyclopedic. I don't see what's so gross about it either, especially in comparison with other sex articles.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is gross and will be a vandalism target stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Not a valid argument to delete. Lugnuts 14:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment True and something being a vandalism target, in itself, is a completely invalid reason for deletion. Yeah, let's go delete the George W. Bush article...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And 20,000 high school articles...--Chaser - T 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment whose inclusion rests on notability, and has no correlation with vandalism. This is quite obviously a notable sexual practice, but whether it deserves its own page I just do not know.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how you can find nipple sucking gross. It's one of the first things I do to a woman during foreplay, without fail.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's lovely, but we're here to talk about whether the article should be deleted or kept based on policies, not whether we find the practice gross or our own private sex lives. Thanks.--Chaser - T 16:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Others have stated (as an invalid argument for deletion) that it's gross. I'm just trying to highlight that others may not for that purpose; I interpret WP:NOT#FORUM quite liberally.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Thekittybomb 16:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... and your reasoning is? Groupthink 16:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not a vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this AFD is heading for no consensus.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More like a keep. The delete votes are citing reasons that are not policy based. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to foreplay. Dalejenkins

Keep - it's not about whether its dirty, it's about whether it encyclopedically written and notable enough. I say it fits the latter if anything. Guroadrunner 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep topic is clearly encyclopedic as a fairly common sexual practice, and the references now included are enough to pass at least the minimum bar of WP:V and WP:N. The article should be expanded and improved with more and better refs, but that is not a reason to delete. DES ^(talk) 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge the closer to discount comments where the only reasopning is "Gross" or other vareints of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DES ^(talk) 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreplay. There are adequate references from the Kinsey Reports to Masters and Johnson to document this as a part of foreplay among humans. The fact that some editors here find the idea "disgusting" or "gross" is pretty hilarious, but irrelevant to the topic being encyclopedic. Later in their lives they may find it less so. It easily satisfies WP:N, but there is not quite enough in the present article for it to stand alone. Edison 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the present article needs to be expanded and better referenced, but this is not a reason to delete. If you agree "it easily satisfies WP:N" I would think you would want to improve the article, not merge it into something else.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DES said it well. This is totally appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I don't think a merge to foreplay makes any sense. Not to be too explicit or anything, but nipple sucking is not solely for foreplay (obviously it often takes place during coitus itself, also it might not lead to sex). Thus it can be referenced in the foreplay article (diligent editor HisSpaceResearch has already taken care of that for us!) but it should have its own article just as French kissing, erotic spanking, and oral sex do--all practices which may or may not be part of foreplay. When someone has some spare time and does not mind getting into trouble, they should create a "Wikipedians who think nipple sucking is gross" category. I won't add myself to the cat, but I'll totally watchlist it. :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Foreplay if it's not expanded after some time.
Arguments like "it's disgusting" and "it could be vandalised" are logical fallacies and against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.--Svetovid 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see it clearly notable as a part of foreplay, but as a standalone fetish it should, well, stand alone, like the other 100,000 things people become sexually obsessed with.An example was the "Specialist" on HBO's Deadwood [1] Merge the prelude/accompanyment to intercourse into Foreplay and perhaps keep what's left as Nipple sucking (fetish). (And I can't believe I just typed that).Edison 20:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's clearly a very common sexual practise, and much more common than an extreme ("1 in 100,000") sexual fetish.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish? Obsessed? ...--Svetovid 09:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - there's nothing really wrong with the article (bit stubby!), or the subject. My only thought is that it can't really be developed much more beyond what it presently is, without going into different options/techniques, which verges on WP:N. As part of foreplay it would at least form part of a whole article and placed in context - who's going to spend the whole night just sucking nipples? Rgds, --Trident13 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good show for a new contributor. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Routine part of human behavior; anyone thinking this is remotely relevant to PORN is a little out of step with the world, and it wouldnt matter if it were. WP NOT Censored means it literally. Sufficient references. Of course there can be more. One good study found, but there's quite a bit of relevant fiction/nonfiction/movies/etc/etc. DGG 07:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use some more work but it is encyclopedic. - Pharaonic 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my heart says dl but I can't find a way to separate this from the other sex act pages on WP. JJL 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article needs more work but it fits the encylopedia aspect of Wikipedia, and it is NOT porn. It is simply a normal part of human sexuality.Lord Balin 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, There seems to be two issues, the validity of the article heading and the validity of the content. The article title seems properly retained. The content is almost without merit - but could be rapidly being transformed. When first visited, there were 2 links. There is now 1 to a how to site. The comment "some genetically female people..." leaves me concerned that this is not even heading toward encyclopedic content. Pever 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I was the person who included the comment about genetically female people; the point being that the presence of breasts does not necessarily indicate a female gender identity (i.e. the word "women" may not be appropriate), but "female-bodied" is still accurate. The "how-to" site was always there; see the diffs in my vote, below. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with foreplay, if not, delete. I made an attempt to bring the quality of this article up to an encyclopedic standard; before; after. The second paragraph was related entirely to erotic lactation, and the "one good study found" that DGG mentioned actually had to do not with whether a man had sucked his wife's nipples, but whether fathers had tasted breastmilk at their partner's breasts. I don't feel that oral stimulation of nipples on its own merits its own article. What is there to expand on—the physics of oral suction? Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't exactly studied this in depth (or actually at all) but I imagine there is plenty to expand upon here. Above DGG made reference to portrayal in "fiction/nonfiction/movies/etc" which seem valid for inclusion in the article, but one might also discuss the history of this practice and cross-cultural differences (I assume different cultures have different attitudes toward it and that attitudes may have changed over time, though even if attitudes were relatively static across time and place this fact would be worthy of inclusion). Also doctors or "sex experts" may have weighed in on the practice of nipple sucking (maybe 100 years ago medical professionals recommended against it, who knows) and this could be included as well. I could be wrong about all of this, but I'm guessing there's more than enough material out there to expand this article and make it more encyclopedic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Bigtimepeace's arguments above (not just the comment directly above, but in the rationale for keeping way above): this is a common human sexual practice, meriting inclusion. It should not be merged under foreplay for the reason that it is not solely used in foreplay. And yes, there is plenty of material out there to expand this article. Note also that this article has been moved/renamed to Oral stimulation of nipples. --Ace of Swords 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. How... clinical. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Indeed. I shudder to imagine what this might mean for Dirty Sanchez, ~~Hot Karl~~, Rusty Trombone and Cleveland Steamer... Groupthink 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Wait a sec, the link to "Hot Karl" is to a rapper?!? Oh gawd, please don't tell me I need to make a disambig page... Groupthink 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Apparently you did need to make a disambig page, and you did a shitty job of it, which in this context means, oddly enough, "good work!"--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Wikipedia is a harsh mistress. If she requires me to wade ankle deep into excrement in order to add a disambig page, then I take a shot of pennicilin and obey... ;) Groupthink 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I moved the page so that it would be more complete in its title. I should have made a note of it here; please excuse me. Joie de Vivre ^T 23:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is an encyclopaedic topic, so you should add more references. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Foreplay or Sexual_fetishism First sentence of the article reads, at present, "A person may engage in oral stimulation of nipples as a sexual practice." -- But this isn't a "sexual practice" anymore than oral stimulation of the nose or the toes or the earlobes, or any other non-genital body part (e.g., the lips, while kissing), is a "sexual practice".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 June 2007.
- Could you possibly read what a fetish is before suggesting something? This sexual practice is more distinctive than oral stimulation of the nose or ear. Also, how do I sign posts for others?--Svetovid 10:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How to sign; answered on your Talk page. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cheers, I got it now.--Svetovid 11:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that it is more distinctive than stimulation of the nose or ear, and I agree that it does not necessarily or even frequently constitute a fetish. However I do feel that it is mainly a form of foreplay and that it should be merged there. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To Mike18xx, actually it is a sexual practice. Sex practices do not have to involve the genitals, which I would have assumed is a fairly obvious point. Thus I'm not sure about the rationale for this delete vote.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO this should not be merged to foreplay, be cause it can occur before, during or after intercourse, or as part of an erotic or sexual encounter that does not involve intercourse. it should not be merged to any fetish articel, because for most people this isn't a fetish (although no doubt there are some for whom it is). if it had to be merged somewhere, the only target that seems reasonable to me is Human sexual behavior. but that is already large enough, IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid encyclopedic subject, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. Yamaguchi先生 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's as valid an encyclopedia article as many other Safe sex articles, e.g. Autofellatio, Uncircumcized, Masturbation, French kissing, Erotic spanking, Oral sex, etc. It's certainly amongst my favorites. Unless we have the urge to merge, that is not an option, because this can be part of the act, or So Much for the Afterglow. I can't believe I wrote that, either! Bearian 01:43, 21 June 2007 (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.