Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cum swallowing


 * 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 merge into Oral sex.
 * Note: Moved from Talk:Cum swallowing, original discussion was on Votes for deletion/archive May 2004.


 * And yet another contribution by user:141. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploding Boy (talk • contribs) Revision as of 14:05, 16 February 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content is salvagable, and can potentially be worthwhile. Probably needs to be moved to a more appropriate name though. ShaneKing 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - we don't need a separate article for each variation - Texture 14:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely needs a better name if it's going to stay, as well as some major NPOV and accuracy work. Exploding Boy 14:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see little academic merit in this.  Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * This might be a section in oral sex, but it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Delete. --No-One Jones 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * It's actually mentioned in the fellatio section of that article Exploding Boy 14:30, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. it doesn't matter who wrote it. You should judge by the content, not by the contributor. Please don't bite the newcomers. 141 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Some newcomers bring a mistake or two. Some newcomers bring boatloads of unwanted and inappropriate baggage. - Texture 14:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, move whatever is deemed salvageable to oral sex. Lupo 15:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to oral sex, or keep. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. Mikkalai 18:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the we change all titles with the slang word &quot;cum&quot; in them to &quot;semen&quot;. Note: this is not a content vote, but a format vote. Davodd 19:06, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to felatio. RickK 21:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * The information about historic opinions is - if verifiable - worth keeping and merging with oral sex. Most of the rest adds little, in particular some of the content (eg refs to gays and bisexuals) is highly generalised PoV. Trevor mendham
 * Merge what is salvagable into the fellatio article and redirect this. &rarr;Raul654 23:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete article. but do not delete the content. move content into fellatio or oral sex. Kingturtle 00:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * agreed - the contents have SOME validity but the title is not encyclopedic. Incorporate the factual information into Oral Sex and kill the article. KJ 05:11, 21 Feb 2004 (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.