Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tickle torture


 * 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.

Tickle torture
The result was   Nomination withdrawn. I'm honestly surprised that people would rather have a bad article than no article about a subject, but I accept the consensus here. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It seems there is little hope for improvement and it would better be gone than stay in its present condition. I must admit, it made me laugh, especially the part about the goat licking the salt solution. But this is not the place for humour. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember this as a commonly used term. Perhaps we can redirect to Tickling? - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cull to one or two lines, include a few of the existing tenuous references, and Merge to the tickling article, in particular, the purpose of tickling section (i.e., the purpose of tickling as 'torture'). Hazir (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trim to a very short paragraph and merge to Tickling. This doesn't appear to be a notable enough or real enough topic for a stand-alone article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Needs to be cleaned up and sourced better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Embarrassment to wikipedia is not a deletion criteria. There are plenty of articles on this site that cover topics some may consider embarrassing to read. But this article does appear to fail in other areas. Since the term is common enough to be notable, I think the article needs cleanup rather than deletion.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not Censored is the relevant policy about embarrassment., but I can see a merge. DGG (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination is an embarassment to Wikipedia. It provides no evidence to support its assertion that there is little hope that the article will be improved and I have just refuted this by adding citations to a couple of good sources which I found amongst the hundreds of possibilities. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this WP:Notable "embarrassment" per WP:AFTER and discuss further sourcing and article trimming on talk page.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are references confirming it does exist, and it has been used as a form of torture in the past.  D r e a m Focus  11:53, 19 April 2009 (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.