Deletion of Pearl necklace (sexuality) (4th nomination)

Comment: or (2nd choice) '''Merge''' to facial (sex act) or mammary intercourse, but '''do not delete'''. I'm not convinced that a whole lot more can be said about this topic, but I could be wrong. There are certainly some |reliable sources out there, so it may be expanded, but at any rate there's enough there in my opinion to justify an article and to demonstrate it's more than a dictionary definition. It presumably can be independent of either facial (sex act) or mammary intercourse, so it'd be better in it's own article than merged. The picture is something that ''I'' don't want to look at every day, and would not want children to see, BUT it certainly is helpful to the reader in understanding the topic, and |Wikipedia is not censored. If the nominator has serious concerns that the subject of the photo is under age, this isn't the place to bring them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: I don't think the nom is all that convincing. My own reasoning, though, is that this article is little more than a . If there were some significant expansion that showed the historical significance of this particular act, or something, that'd be different. As it stands there's just not enough here to warrant a separate article. As for those saying the article ''could'' be expanded, I say in the meantime it should be merged until the content is expanded thusly. It can always be split off again once there's adequate material to warrant a separate article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: Nominator asserts: ''"We all know what this is, but that doesn't necessarily make it an encyclopedic topic."''  That is only half-right.  We shouldn't keep any article that is based solely on what someone thinks they know, or what they think everyone knows.  We expect articles to have authoritative |reliable, |verifiable sources.  And what if we have an article that does neutrally dite good  authoritative |reliable, |verifiable sources -- should we ever delete that article becasue someone thinks the topic is ''"obvious
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:VER||WP:RS||WP:VER)

Comment: Meets the |gng. Could use some expansion and more sourcing, but in no way is it non-notable or deserving of deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)