Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukkake

Bukkake was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke  08:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Disgusting and unnecessary.


 * I agree that bukkake is disgusting. In fact, I think that it is even slightly more disgusting than anal sex and almost as disgusting as scat fetishism. I am not sure whether it is unnecessary, though. In any case, if we are going to remove disgusting subjects, I would start from cannibalism. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 21:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No - this is censorship. Keep. The reasons given are inherently POV and are not valid reasons for deletion. The person who nominated this article should not bring his/her subjecttive morality to Wikipedia. Elf-friend 21:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a good point. We should eliminate censorship. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 21:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ;) BTW, the proposer (or at least his username) seems only to have been active on Wikipedia since today and has for the most part contributed to fancruft articles ... which usually gets my VfD trigger finger itching. Moreover, I don't think he/she followed the proper procedure on the main VfD page ... I can't find this article there, so it remains to be seen if it is "officially" on the VfD list. Anyway, my prediction is that this proposal for deletion will be shot down in flames, if the whole picture debate in the clitoris article is anything to go by. Hey, that article is also unneccesary and disgusting ... (BTW, Rfl, are you voting Keep, Delete or Neutral? You're not really stating it explicitly.) Elf-friend 21:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If it is not formally on the VfD list then the template should be removed, because this page has not been &ldquo;listed for deletion.&rdquo; Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 12:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable, and the term has multiple uses. --Slowking Man 03:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable encyclopedic topic; also has useful information on Japanese and American culture and urban myths. -- The Anome 07:13, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gross, but real. - Evil saltine 09:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disgusting? That is an euphemism. Unnecessary as a practice? Undoubtedly. That doesn&rsquo;t mean it is unnecessary as an article, though. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 12:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. What does it matter whether it is disgusting or not? the fact of the matter is that it happens, or someone wouldn't have written an article about it. Censorship in an encylopedia should NOT happen. Simple as that. - 13th nov 2004 - 1:40am GMT


 * Keep. real information about a true practice. - 13th nov 2004 - 2:40am GMT
 * Keep --Blade Hirato 08:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Helpful information on verifiable encyclopedic topic. Whether the practice offends is immaterial.  --nbayguy  08:29, 14 Nov 2004
 * Keep. Real, why delete it - that would be censorship --User:rhs98
 * Keep. What possible reason could there be for deletion other than that it gives someone the ickys? --Glaucus 23:48 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)
 * Keep, but in desparate need of cleanup. Since the last time I saw this article someone has added a bunch of potentially misleading things...  Exploding Boy 23:47, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.