Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult Baby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to infantilism. – malathion talk 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adult Baby

Following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ABDL the creator of that page removed the redirect [1] and pointed to this page. Which was also a redirect until it was removed [2]. Either delete, or redirect and protect. brenneman(t)(c) 01:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep for merge to infantilism, which looks like it could use some reorganization. Gazpacho 03:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge Diaper Lover into it, as adult baby appears to be the more popular term (googlefight). Eldereft 07:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD should not be used to solve edit wars. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. As there is already an adult baby page which redirects to infantilism, it seems reasonable to just merge this article into that one and make the two capitalizations redirects. Then Adult Baby becomes redundant and can be deleted. 71.106.176.221 09:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The creator of this VfD is abusing VfD to get his own way and anyone who goes against his judgement is attacked as being too close to a subject to be objective. --OrbitOne 11:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Merge to infantilism NoSeptember 13:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Both Tony Sidaway and OrbitOne appear to be claiming I'm operating in bad faith. Tony should note at the time of this VfD my only substantive edit to the page was to replace the redirect [3]. Orbit should provide evidence of his claims. Per result of the old VfD, Mergeing and Redirecting have already been done elsewhere. Finally, there has been some discussion regarding how consensus is reached. A vote of merge can be interpreted as a "defacto keep", as the closer of the VfD is under no obligation to perform the merge. - brenneman(t)(c) 16:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Aaron, I didn't mean to imply you had listed this article in bad faith. I just wanted to point out that the solution to your problem here would be to put the redirect back where it was. There is no need to have another VfD for this, just do it. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I was trying to be cautious... but I've done that now. - brenneman(t)(c) 16:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • merge & redirect to infantilism, adding in Diaper Lover and such. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect. Briangotts (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to infantilism. I performed a revert from the redirect since the VfD discussion is not yet complete. — RJH 17:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with infantilism. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep infantilism is not the same thing.Dejvid 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looking at infantilism, it looks like a rather dry exposition of something from DSM IV. Well, we're all grown-ups here, we all know it's fun to dress up and play-act, especially with someone we love. The adult baby thing seems to be a description of the fun side. It isn't something that interests me but I can't see any problem with dressing up in diapers and getting changed--I'd do it for someone I love. Equating the infantilism article to this article seems a bit like saying we ought to redirect homosexuality to buggery, or even AIDS. Why not redirect the Sexual intercourse article to Rape? --Tony SidawayTalk 00:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummm... yeah. This appears to be an attempt to characterize this nomination for VfD as a value judgement. Perhaps if we just stick to discussion of the article and leave the wild rhetoric aside? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. I'm only saying that merging the infantilism article with the Adult Baby article would be a loss. I have absolutely no idea why you want to delete Adult Baby in the first place--as I said, you only need to edit it to point at whatever you want it to. Honestly why do you describe my comments as "wild rhetoric"? --Tony SidawayTalk 00:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Are we to remove references to all minorities, and post only discussions of the majority? Yes, the Adult Baby community is small. So what? There are other communities which are small, but we wouldn't dream of eliminating records of them. And if there is a single party that has chosen to attempt to eliminate all such references to anyone minority, whether that is a sexual, racial, religious, national or whatever other variety of minority, then the motives of such a person should be called into question. Why are attack of such vehemence so frequently applied to this one group? Would the person in question please answer as to what is driving these repeated attacks against even the mere mention of the existence of this minority? Dave 01:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Umm... again, yeah. First putting this on VfD is like saying sex is rape, now I'm some sort of crypto-puritan? Is there some reason we can't just talk about articles? - brenneman(t)(c) 02:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It would be easy to assume this wasn't personal. If it weren't originating with just one person. Sure, let's talk about the article as a description of a minority in a cultural context. Now, why would you want to delete something like that? Dave 12:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to "infantilism". - MicroFeet 21:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.