Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cock and ball torture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cock and ball torture

  • Delete Non encyclopedic, sounds rubbish.Gary Kirk 14:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep perhaps sounds rubbish, but is real...personally disgusts me, but it is a valid BDSM (the whole BDSM thing disgusts me...) article. R. Genung
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - sounds sick, but WP is not censored the last time I checked. Renata3 14:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. A lot of similar BDSM acts are also documented on Wikipedia, and this certainly has expansion potential. That said, I think a lot of the BDSM-cruft on WP could stand to be merged and consolidated; I just have no idea how. (Incidentally, it sounds like a lot worse than what most people who practice this actually practice.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per User:A Man In Black, this is a real term/practice even if it sounds stupid to me. Seems like something that could be merged though, but I dunno where either. --W.marsh 15:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, genuine S&M practice. But I'd go for a merge if someone suggested a good place to merge it to. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Although unplesant merits keeping as per User:A Man In Black Astaroth5 15:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not my cup of tea, but still a valid article topic. - Mgm|(talk) 15:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but - and this may because as a Briton I have an automatic prude reaction to things like this - can't it be re-directed to a less graphic title? doktorb 16:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted above, however, if a better term can be found, redirect to that. 23skidoo 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable sex act and the article has a reference. Not my cup of tea but useful to some. As far as I am aware, this is its most common name. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sadism and masochism. Durova 17:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Valid topic; WP already maintains adult-orented material. — RJH 17:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly merge into a page about various BDSM practices. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 19:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid BDSM topic. — JIP | Talk 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep valid topic talk
  • Keep as per JIP. As scary as it may be, this is a legit (um ...) fetish. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I went to Catholic school for 13 years and by year 11 I knew what it was. Keep in mind, I was very sheltered. If I heard about it in that period of my life... it sure must be important! I would agree with some of the others that perhaps some of these BDSM practices could be merged, but I don't have any idea to which page, either. Jacqui ★ 00:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real - doesn't float my boat, but the garden of the Prophet contains every type of flower. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a very widespread sexual practice that is known by an abbreviation, CBT, a good indicator of knowledge within the community. Jtmichcock 12:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the following reasons, first, this is a real practice, and second, the article is written factologically and is not obscene; Consider revising by pointing out that this sexual practice would be considered a fetish or sexual perversion by most people ---
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.