Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast orgasm


 * 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Breast orgasm

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

unencyclopedic and not much more than a definition Nardman1 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, non-notable and by the looks of it spam. Jaymac407 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense. Doczilla 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The 3 references presented do not seem to satisfy WP:A as reliable sources of information. There are under 600 Google hits for the term, and most are just clusters of term to gain Google hits from porn sites. Needs references from more reliable sources such as medical books, journal articles something like the Kinsey report. What it has is random websites and Howard Stern. Edison 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because I think I will find some better sources. DGG 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.Of course if somebody can provide a source from medical literature the article need not be deleted. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 07:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the commenters above unless better sources can be found, appears to be nonsense. Yamaguchi先生 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuke from orbit... nuff said.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 04:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Orgasm article? Provided some citations can be found. --  JediLofty User 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but give more information and sources nuff said... make more info available, Andariel Halo
 * Keep, if breast orgasms actually exist (needs to be labeled a stub); if they don't exist then Delete it.Ye Olde Luke 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * embarassed keep - um... either they do exist or my ex-gf is a liar. (Aren't you happy you came to AfD today?) Seriously, there do seem to be a couple sources at the bottom of the article now, though I can understand wanting a medical source since it seems contentious. (Funny how 100 years ago, we'd be having the same argument as to whether the clitoris exists.) (Now you must be happy you came to AfD today.) But merge with orgasm is okay too, since there's not much here right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OMGzorz, I just used the term "merge with orgasm" in a sentence. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course medical literature was also needed to show (whlie everybody could have suspected already) that all these enlightened people claiming all kinds of cures are nothing more than a fraud. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per weak refs and my opine: this is arbitrary as whatever a women percieves to be an erogenous zone could possibly result in orgasm. do we really need an article for shoulder blade orgasm? okay, dont answer that. the_undertow talk  01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Yes, it seems you know the answer: if people were to write about it, either in reality or a fantasy, yes we would. Just like everything else. It doesnt have to be real to be notable. If we eliminated fantasy of all sorts from WP, half of it would go. DGG 06:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply you are unfortunately right, which is evidenced by allowing ludicrous articles like this one and this one. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge &rarr; Orgasm. A comment on the three citations: Men's Health is pretty much the male equivalent of Cosmo; MSN Lifestyle would be equivalent to the Life section of USA Today or the Weekend section of a national newspaper; the sexuality.com site isn't a fly-by-night operation, but one that is associated (albeit in a mix of education and promotion) with an edutainment operation that has actively toured colleges in the United States.  Each citation individually would be too weak; together, owing to their independence from one another and national (American) scope, they establish notability sufficient to support inclusion of the material in the Orgasm article.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:23, 22 April 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.