Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erect Nipples

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 delete. --Coredesat 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erect Nipples

Erect Nipples (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Erect nipples is not really a slang term as much as a physiological response. This article provides no useful information and may exist just to show two photos of breasts. Any useful scientific information is contained on the nipples page. Also, very little links to the page; I don't see a point to its existence. Tractorkingsfan 10:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is the most pointless pointy article I've ever seen. --Charlene 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL Miltopia 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Those are some nice pics, though. Also, erect nipples isn't a phenomenon confined to women, men get it as well. I believe this may have potential if we can get more information about it. We could use an expert on the subject, so where might one find an academic who has a PhD in Erect Nipples? Alaska? Northern Siberia? Black-Velvet 11:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I want to vote so I have an excuse to laugh, and this article seems pretty silly. Miltopia 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't mean "Create a page so there are more pages with naked photos". -Amarkov ^babble 15:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. First toe cleavage up for AfD and now this article, I need a cold shower! --tgheretford (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• (o)Delete(o) - This article went tits-up a while ago. Really, we need to get a-breast of the tituation here and get rid of the boobiecruft. :-p Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 16:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And we know what's on your mind, yesno? =^_^= --Dennisthe2 08:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not your pornographic encyclopedia. This is just lame. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a pornographic directory. Hello32020 20:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's really nothing to say here that isn't covered at Nipples. Furthermore "erect nipples" isn't even slang -- it's pretty much just what they're called. The abundance of redirects are amusing however. There's a whole list of more "slangy" terms at Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Body Parts Slang for the curious. However I disagree with the statements about pornography -- firsly WP does include a lot of content on pornography, and IMHO, should. Secondly, this article is merely "naughty". Dina 20:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that this a legitimate physiological response, I don't see how it is even "naughty". JoshuaZ 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, I wasn't suggesting that the concept of nipple erection is naughty, rather that the article's focus on seeing women's nipples through their shirts, is well, "unencyclopedic". ;) Dina 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm, possibly. I would agree in so far as if we are going to have an article on the topic and it would have a picture it would make more sense to have an exposed picture. JoshuaZ 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — Complete nonsense - plus, even though this may be a term of use, it does not merit its own Wikipedia article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 22:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Whyyyy? is this here? Redirect to Nipples and be done with it. No need for this debate. -Doc^g 00:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect for per per Doc, althouhg at some point it might be reasonable to have an article on this topic. However, nothing here looks like it will help much in that regard.JoshuaZ 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not even funny. --Dennisthe2 08:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - the kind of drivel that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Pete Fenelon 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Aroused Delete Danny Lilithborne 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and Redirect - Blank the page, change it to a redirect, fix any double redirects, and wish people didn't need to add nonsense articles. I am amused though - stuff like this makes browsing AfD worthwhile :) . Nihiltres 01:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Really? It's weird that people think the article is funny. Family Guy is funny. This article is just dumb and worthless. Tractorkingsfan 04:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You got it the wrong way around there, my friend. Black-Velvet 07:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC_
• No way, no way, no way. That show is hilarious. Though I visited your user page, and must say I agree with you on the VU. That's the good shit. But I shouldn't have gotten away from the point, the article needs to go. And people have the right to be amused by whatever, so chuckle on folks. Tractorkingsfan 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You agree with me about the VU? Thanks. I made that template, you know. And let's just disagree to disagree. Black-Velvet 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment And a fine template it is. Disagreement to disagree disagreed upon. Tractorkingsfan 12:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is one of the many articles of the sexual slang category. Althought I have to admit many of them could be merged together into Listing of sexual slang or the like. Many of the articles are very short. --Pinkkeith 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is slang like "erect penis" is slang. This is simply what it is called, and is not a colloquialism. Something like "nipple boner" might be slang, but again per my above vote maybe suggests, this would be more along the lines of Urban Dictionary fodder. --Dennisthe2 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless article, and as Nihiltres says, stuff like this makes browsing AfD a worthwhile thing to do. At the very least you could move it to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense SunStar Net 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I fail to see how an article about an actual physiological phenomenon should be BJAODN. JoshuaZ 14:28, 14 November 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.