Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teabagging

Dicdef, and a vulgar one at that. - Lucky 6.9 16:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete:~~ Dictdef, although I'm sure John Waters (whose Pecker got this term out to the world) would be delighted. Geogre 17:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It nearly kills me to do so, but the new article is not a dictdef, so I'm changing my vote to a stomach-clenched keep. (Forgot to sign) Geogre 13:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Agree with Geogre about Pecker. Is there a mechanism for sending dictionary entries over to Wiktionary.org? Because what is to stop the cycle of post - delete - post - delete - ... Paitum
Vulgarity is not an issue, but it seems far too narrow a topic. I've incorporated it into oral sex; delete or redirect. Rls 17:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- IIRC, in the movie Pecker, it did not refer to dipping into the mouth, but more placing *them* on the foreheads of the customers. (please correct me if I am mistaken) Paitum
  - I haven't seen Pecker, but the term is in common usage for the oral sex act. It's used more as a practical joke/urban legend rather than an actual sexual act I suspect. With all these references maybe it does need an article ;) Rls 18:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - Just for clarification, in Pecker a male stripper, wearing his briefs, would dance up and press his testicles against an appreciative client's face. The briefs were apparently the bag. It was a mass culture movie, so it's possible that Waters tamed it. Geogre 04:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, or redirect to oral sex. This article could easily be expanded. theresa knott 19:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, this was a common proposed prank in my college dorm. I'll expand accordingly. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, for same reasons. -Sean Curtin 23:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 09:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to oral sex. How many of were first tempted into dictionaries and encyclopedias by looking up vulgarities? Oh, only me then. Valid but doesn't deserve an article. Cutler 14:29, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but how many have been led astray from the paths of virtue by perusing a dictionary, sincerely seeking information, only to have their innocent young mind inflamed by a prurient definition? Dpbsmith 22:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now, I never said that this didn't sound like fun. I like the idea of a redirect. - Lucky 6.9 18:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
delete. why do we need such drivel. and why should we redirect a harmless 'safe for kids' term into an obscure adult only fetish? Erich 05:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Oral sex is an 'obscure fetish'? -Sean Curtin 02:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - Worthless comment: Oral sex is obscure to puritans who don't want any fun in their life. :) -- Stevietheman 03:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - errr.. I meant teabagging not oral sex. I'm sure I could tell you a bit about oral sex but now User:Ratgurl is peering over my shoulder so I better not. But why is Wikipedia so happy to be sexpedia? I was editing all day today from the Catholic hospital I work at. The nuns monitor the traffic. I'm sure I'm not the only one that edits from that sort of 'watched' environment. I just question the value of this junk. (ratgurl disagrees) Erich 12:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    - She's WHAT?? Oh... you said peering. Never mind. I thought you were going to volunteer to write a related article. Wikisux 12:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    - It's been pretty firmly established that the answer to "I can't edit safely from work" is "don't do that then." If your job is so at risk, then what the fuck are you doing editing Wikipedia at work rather than, e.g., working? - David Gerard 13:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    - Well I'm too valuable to sack (as is were) :-) My current rotation has a lot of down time. If screaming ladies don't need me to put big needles in their backs, or there are know cesarians to do, then well... its the Internet... all day yesterday as it happened. But I just don't get why this stuff has any more value to the world than all the recipes. except long lists of recipes wouldn't encourage some schools to remove wikipedia from their 'safe for the kids' list. best wishesErich 20:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep - So thats what that is called, huh. --Buster 08:43, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I've heard Howard Stern discuss this practice too. It's a cruel prank, about two steps above farting in someone's face while they're asleep and two below the time-honored hand-in-the-water-glass gag. User:The Iconoclast 18:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, do not redirect to oral sex, because usage is more common when referring to the prank. It is a common enough word to merit a keep as well. —siro χ o 03:11, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comment. Well, query. Well, prurient question. As of 2004, is this really a common prank? O tempora, O Moses! Or, like "mooning," is it something discussed far more often than performed? (Please tell me that as of 2004 mooning is discussed more often than performed). Also, if it is a common prank, isn't the prankster putting himself dangerously in harm's way, should the victim take serious umbrage? Dpbsmith 22:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep... we always used to call this activity "braining." Guess I'll rewrite. Wikisux 12:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, been rewritten and now OK. --Lussmu 23:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. The rewrite looks great. - Lucky 6.9 03:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems fine to me, only read the new version. However, comment about braining- testicles do not look like brains in any way shape or form... :) Graham 05:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now cleaned up and de-stubbed. Rls 14:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) (one-time non-consenting teabagee)
Just another KEEP vote. Eventually Wikipedia will be a million The Encyclopedia of Whatever books rolled into one; no reason not to have The Encyclopedia of Sex as a part of that. jengod 20:03, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)