Deletion of Nipple sucking

Comment: Others have stated (as an invalid argument for deletion) that it's gross. I'm just trying to highlight that others may not for that purpose; I interpret #FORUM quite liberally
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:PORN is just an essay, not a policy or guideline. Your delete vote smacks of  and is thus invalid. Groupthink's suggestion seems to be a better one: merge and redirect. Also, if you think mere ''nipple sucking'' is disgusting, then I dread to hear what you think about such articles as donkey punch, cleveland steamer, anal torture, urethral play, rusty trombone which I find truly revolting. I don't find nipple sucking disgusting at all
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: there's nothing really wrong with the article (bit stubby!), or the subject. My only thought is that it can't really be developed much more beyond what it presently is, without going into different options/techniques, which verges on . As part of foreplay it would at least form part of a whole article and placed in context - who's going to spend the whole night just sucking nipples? Rgds
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: to Foreplay. There are adequate references from the Kinsey Reports to Masters and Johnson to document this as a part of foreplay among humans. The fact that some editors here find the idea "disgusting" or "gross" is pretty hilarious, but irrelevant to the topic being encyclopedic. Later in their lives they may find it less so. It easily satisfies , but there is not quite enough in the present article for it to stand alone
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It is gross and  will be a vandalism target'' stinks of  to me.  Not a valid argument to delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: that's irrelevant to this debate, and anyway although that slang term seems to be in use it isn't referenced to  and may be a  violation although I've left it for the moment
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: perfectly valid encyclopedic subject, and Wikipedia is  censored.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: topic is clearly encyclopedic as a fairly common sexual practice, and the references now included are enough to pass at least the minimum bar of  and . The article should be expanded and improved with more and better refs, but that is not a reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: see . But yeah, this is a much more normal and common sexual practise than either of those two, and you can't really argue with me on that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)