Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cock tease


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:42Z 

Cock tease

 * �-- (View AfD)

This article is unencyclopedic. Jackk 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Keep per upgrades... assumed there wasn't any real history/literary use behind it Jackk 07:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki - WP:NOT a dictionary. Wikitionary, otoh, is. Mytildebang 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Slang, don't think Wiktionary will accept it. MER-C 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep since the concerns have been addressed. MER-C 07:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:WINAD Seventypercent 15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete slang dicdef. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki unless someone wants to put the time into upgrading it (might be worthwhile) Keep per DGG's upgrades. WilyD 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Keep all issues addressed in my opinion -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC) - It is slang, it is probably a dict def. If i was some clueless individual who heard the term and wondered what it was, I would probably come to wikipedia and look for an answer.  If there was some work put into it, even a single valid cite, i would probably change my vote.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's already cock tease, which predates the article. If there's some sort of redirect or transwiki notification, place it up. --Howrealisreal 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing here worth transwiki-ing.  If someone wants to upgrade the article, they can start from scratch, there's nothing here that they wouldn't have to  rewrite or get rid of anyway.  delldot | talk 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Weak keep after DGG's changes.  Keep up the good work, DGG, it'll get there!  delldot | talk 05:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a dictionary entry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SweetGodiva (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete per nom - no transiki here! SkierRMH 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep-- Notability, Verifiability and WPDictionary objections answered Already in Wiktionary, of course, but I have given a somewhat more adult discussion, along with 2 unmistakably academic references--one even non-US--one law review article and one Master's thesis, along with 3 examples of notable mainstream use, in classic films and novel, and one presumably notable adult film already in WP. (and a link to the pornography and blogs) I had thought that the term was somewhat old-fashioned, but my teen-ager told me it was still in use. (smile)   The non-academic stuff took half an hour, as did the academic.  I'll add some song texts from mainstream artists.  I think this was what you asked,  WilyD, & Chris, and I find it easier to work with even a poorly done stub than to start afresh; for one thing, when it comes up for AfD, there's some pressure to get it done. (smile again)DGG 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep assuming DGG is going to continue working on it -- the recent additions seem to show that expansion is possible after all. Which I find somewhat surprising, but there you go. Shimeru 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: although there is a Wiktionary entry (for which I've added the link to the Wikipedia article), the article has additional information that wouldn't fit a dictionary entry. – SAJordan talkcontribs 07:12, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep. Improved since nominated. Jokestress 08:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it's vulgar, but it's certainly notable Mikemoto 17:40, 25 December 2006
 * Keep per above. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * '"Keep"' and let's hope somebody chooses to elaborate on the "gender roles" implications - the article is already beyond just a definition, but there's room for lots more depth. Credmond 02:11, 27 December 2006 (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.