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 No consensus. By my count, we have 24 delete (including transwiki to Wiktionary), 18 keep, 3 merge, and 4 redirect. Go work it out on the talk page. Stifle 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licking[edit]

mainly nonsense. As pointed out on it's talk page if anything, this is a definition of a verb for wiktionary. It was tagged for speedy but tag removed. My vote is for Delete obviously :) _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, would say transwiki but Wiktionary probably has this very common word already. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; no need to transwiki --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bucketsofg 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gerund of the verb to lick? Can be mentioned on the Wiktionary article page of same - WP is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dicdef (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). --Terence Ong 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (argh, I feel weird doing this) - no more a dictdef than clapping is. If what there is a dictdef, which it sort of is, it should be expanded and not deleted. Proto||type 11:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Move to "Lick" per naming conventions, rewrite/expand

  As Lick is a disambiguation page, if licking were to be kept, it's in the right place. Unless you really think Lick (tongue action) is a good title. Proto||type 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Proto. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & rename to Lick, which ought to be moved to Lick (disambiguation). Your not going to delete an article about one of the primary functions of such a significant anatomical component. JeffBurdges 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. History, culture, etc can all be covered under this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:16
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with eating - it's basically a form of ingestion. Fishhead64 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as dicdef with no other meaningful content, even after yesterday's major rewrite—sorry :-(( Slowmover 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as wider range of subjects are incorporated. Because of the many places in North America named "Lick" (as in "salt lick"), I think that "licking" deserves its own entry. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote from indefinitely-banned user Amorrow struck out. AnnH ♫ 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs improvement, but licking is an important mammal trait. WAS 4.250 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article was started by a banned sock puppet. It contains unsourced, non-verified information. If some one decides to write an article they should start from scratch using scientific sources. (Sorry, I didn't look far enough back in the history.) Delete and merge the factual text where appropriate. FloNight ^talk 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to tongue. --FloNight ^talk 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mainly because of WP is not a dictionary - but also article is rather uninformative, unsourced, with little to no meaningful content.DonaNobisPacem 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic and unsourced. AnnH ♫ 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also support redirecting to tongue as an alternative. AnnH ♫ 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced, unverifiable, unencyclopedic ➥the Epopt 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Deserves mention on Wikitionary. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Goes beyond a dictdef I think. --kingboyk 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can be sourced and there seems to be quite a bit of information that could be added beyond just a def. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tongue per discussion below. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as horrible, could be made encyclopaedic but we are better off without this cruft-o-rama. Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FloNight and others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per DonaNobisPacem and The Epopt. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ZOMG Keep - How in the world do you delete an article on an ingestion method for many mammals?! Cyde Weys 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Updated vote to strong keep below.[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikitionary or weak delete. Esteffect 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't imagine why this article was tagged for deletion. It could certainly benefit from cleanup. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the version that existed when listed here you'll understand _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tony (or redirect to tongue per Cyde below). The existing content is mostly silly and ought to be pruned down to a stub, but the subject itself is certainly encyclopedic. I'm too tired to work on the article now, but I'll try to clean it up tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is "silly" in it's present form and is not changed then shouldn't this article be deleted and page left blank until someone is bothered writing a serious article? Just my $0.02... _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 22:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just went and wrote what is at least an attempt at a serious article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Proto —Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and send it to Wikitonary, if they want it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After five days and a few hours, we have:

• Delete or Weak Delete - 19
• Keep or Weak Keep - 13
• Merge (with eating) - 1

DonaNobisPacem 06:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD IS NOT A VOTE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you think you'll have to yell that before it becomes true? AfD is without question a vote. Try closing a "discussion" with 17 "delete, NN" votes and one decent argument for keeping as a keep, and see what happens.Grace Note 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: One of the cornerstones of the deletion policy is a prohibition against dictionary definitions. This article is a dictionary definition with subheadings. The matter is rather simple and should have been automatic, had there not been a banned user involved and passions surrounding his claims. Please, folks: look at the article, not the authors. Look at the article, not what could someday be done along the same lines. This is an overly long dictionary definition: we have Wiktionary at another site. It is, incidentally, a self-evident dictionary definition as well, but that's only a multiplier. Geogre 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dictionary defintion and put link to Wiktionary article on the "lick" disambig page. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just plain silly - this word is not that complex that special definitions are required. The dictionary is good enough. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Some people seem to think that licking is obvious or a dictdef. Would you please like to tell me the muscles that are involved in licking then? There's lots of potential here for a great encyclopedia article. Hell, you could even write a good section about the evolution of licking. But no one seems to see that potential but I. Cyde Weys 17:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the relevant info, including "social application" ;), is already at the article Tongue - which is what is used for licking. Any info on complex muscle groups would more properly belong under that heading, as that is what the muscles are attached to, I would think? DonaNobisPacem 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-checked the tongue article - it has info on the muscle groups/biology. DonaNobisPacem 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, any objections to redirecting licking to tongue? --Cyde Weys 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. Redirect to Tongue, per Cyde. -Colin Kimbrell 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde Weys and DonaNobisPacem, sounds like a good idea to me if most of the information is already there. Thanks for working it out.FloNight ^talk 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to tongue sounds like a great compromise. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect sounds like an ok compromise to me DonaNobisPacem 18:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to tongue. Radagast83 19:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Tongue per above. Herostratus 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Changed vote after rewrite. Keep. Enh, why not. Important animal trait. Herostratus 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What Geogre said. —Encephalon 21:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Update: I just rewrote the article almost entirely. It still needs a lot of work, but should at least be a step in the right direction. Hopefully those who voted to delete the earlier content will reconsider now that the article has been rewritten. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After Ilmari's rewrite, the article is in much better shape, and I doubt Wikitionary would accept this article, as it is more than just a dictionary definition. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Geogre, even after the rewrite. Sorry. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree; any info that is there still belongs (in my humble opinion) on the tongue page. On the Wikipedia merge page, we read that not every topic requires a page; for instance, flammable and inflammable belong on flammability. I would think that licking belongs on tongue under that argument? DonaNobisPacem 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I should clarify - that means, as I have said above, redirect to tongue. DonaNobisPacem 08:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, certainly enough information there to deserve its own article. Polotet 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If anyone cares, info can be added to tongue. patsw 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge. I linked to both off my user page (well before this AfD) and found it amusing that there were a entries for both lick and licking. I'm not picky as to which article title is kept and I'd be happy to help with merging and expanding the two.--Pro-Lick 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarity, I was voting for a merge of Lick and Licking. I'm not opposed to merging with Tongue if it does not create any size issues.
• Delete This is vandal bait as it sits. Dominick ^(TALK) 09:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you expand on that? I may be missing some context, but to me "vandal bait" suggests articles like Teabagging or Anus language. I'm sure this article would attract its share of vandals and silly trivia, but I don't see why it should be a particularly common target compared to the really heavily vandalized ones like George W. Bush or Hitler or even (for whatever strange reason) Archimedes. Nor do I see why we couldn't handle vandalism to this article just like we handle it in general. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vandalbait" is just not a valid reason for deletion, it really isn't. We can protect an article, we can watch it, but we don't give in to vandals by deleting valid encyclopedic content! --kingboyk 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- but if the vote is to delete, should be redirect to Licking County, Ohio. --Nlu (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what the article looked like initially but in its current state it seems encyclopedic to me, a lot more than just a mere dictdef. Keep (however I am not opposed to a merge with tongue, that would be my second choice if this is close, but previous versions talked about other meanings of the word that are derived from the main definition... those could be expanded better here than there) ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. KHM03 (γραφ) 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as per above. Kukini 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It's much better in its current form and I commend you tremendously, Ilmari Karonen. I knew this thing could be done encyclopedically. To the rest of the voters — please reconsider your votes. And to the closing admin, please consider that most of these previous votes were done on the old version, and in addition, "consensus" shouldn't overwhelm the mission of the project, which is what would happen if this thing were to be deleted. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep – Licking is a notable topic, with sexual and sociological implications for various species. If made encyclopedic, there is no reason to delete; and if the article cannot grow much beyond a stub, by all means merge with Tongue. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Encyclopaedias are or should be in part dictionaries with more detail. If someone is willing to write a comprehensive article about "licking", I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop them. Grace Note 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is not a need to write a comprehensive article on every single kind of variation of a theme. e.g. there is no need to have a page on flammable, inflammable, and flammability. The Tongue is an integral part to licking. The use of the tongue in eating and drinking are already laid out in the Tongue article, having a page specifically for licking is redundant. If this survives the AfD, then all relevant information that is already included on the tongue page should be excised from Licking. Radagast83 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is something of a straw-man argument: whereas "flammable" and "inflammable" are descriptions of flammability, "licking" is a separate concept from tongue, just one of a number of actions it is used for. After all, we don't redirect running to foot, do we? Other uses of the tongue, such as eating, drinking and talking, do have their own main articles, even if they're also described briefly in the tongue article. Why not so for licking? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ilmari has it exactly right... There is more to licking than fits into the tongue article. In particular I think exploration of why the term is used (along with "hiding") to describe corporal punishment might be quite interesting. No change in my previous opinion of keep... ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think sprotecting AFD pages by default would be a great idea. Stifle 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.