Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipple bite


 * 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 of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)   06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nipple bite
Contested PROD. Self-explanatory concept and nothing but a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP: this could easily grow beyond a mere definition. Could go into things like history, why it is erotic, appearances in pornography, feminist analyses, etc....there are numerous sex act articles on the pedia and though this alone is not valid reason for inclusion, in the context of these other articles this seems like a useful addition to help make coverage of sex acts more complete. Defintely deserves a stub tag, though. Quepasahombre 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. This would be better suited to Wiktionary, if at all. pm_shef 06:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and the unencyclopedic tone. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs to be expanded and maybe renamed to "nipple biting" (I don't see it as a 'term' for a dictionary but as a 'practice'). Seems also to be relevant in terms of breastfeeding with over 73000 Google hits for nipple+bite+breastfeeding. Gu 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. -- Kjkolb 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary/ dicdef. --Ter e nce Ong 11:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef. What are we saying here?  A "nipple bite" is when a nipple gets bit?  Huh? --Deville (Talk) 13:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable sexual act Celcius 13:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable sexual practice. I agree with users above who point out that there is more to be said about this practice. Thus, though the article is not sufficiently complete right now, some good wiki-editing and expansion could definitely lead to this becoming a worthwhile article. Interestingstuffadder 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear delete per Deville — Encephalon 15:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Human_sexual_behavior which ought to be text, not just a list. No doubt more could be said, but it should be expanded on the Human_sexual_behavior page before creating one line articles.  Any sex acts which develop long texts there, ought to be given seperate articles.  JeffBurdges 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into an appropriate article. Definitely passes WP:KIT. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-30 21:13
 * Merge or Delete per JeffBurdges.  This is only a dictionary entry.  Even if it were expanded, it should be merged.  Ande B. 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep = as above. For great justice. 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable human oral activity. What's next?  Ear-lobe licking? Fishhead64 06:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I shudder to think how long that link is going to stay a sensible red. — Encephalon 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Deville. Slowmover 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Funky Monkey 12:00, 4 April 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.