Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body nullification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was merge and redirect to body modification (or could consider redirected to body integrity identity disorder with consensus of involved editors). MastCell Talk 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Body nullification

Body nullification (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced minor variant on Body modification; what little content is varied could be merged into that article. The majority of the slightly over 600 google hits for this term are Wikipedia mirrors. This article has remained unreferenced since its inception in 2003, despite tagging for references in July 2006. Risker 04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless reliable sources giving coverage to this term/practice are found Corpx 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - lack of sources Fosnez 07:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unattributed. Carlosguitar 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Yuk. People really do this? Nick mallory 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Body integrity identity disorder and Body modification. As the nominator already suggests merging, I want to point out that the process of merging articles does not involve deleting parent articles, but instead redirecting them to the merged article. Deleting after a merge removes article and author history, thereby violating the GFDL. In addition, the topic is (via Google) not only supported by Wikipedia mirror, but also by other sources: [1][2][3] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am getting a virus alert when I check the first reference you have indicated above so of course won't even open it let alone use it as a reference, which then leaves only two references from a single source, BMEzine. If this is a notable enough paraphilia to be included in another article, I have no problems with it being merged, but I have no interest in doing it myself and do genuinely doubt it is notable. Please feel free if you think it is worth keeping. Risker 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It is a word document containing a previously web-published article on body modification, that is probably the reason its triggered. I have now found the proper (non .DOC) weblink for same ref: [4] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia has more than enough spam from these freaks. --EAEB 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please explain how having "more than enough spam from these freaks" is a proper reason to delete an article on a valid, existing concept? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yea that isn't a valid reason for deleting the article Jaranda wat's sup 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I added references to the article (3 new ones and one from above). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You so obviously have not looked at the actual references I added to the article. Didn't I just state that they were new ones (in order words, different from the ones above). For your convenience, here are the references I also added to the article:
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, he probably did. In order, they are:
  • A brief, unreferenced dicdef at the end of an article on a completely different subject.
  • An unreferenced dicdef
  • A self published book
  • An essentially self published article that mentions the term but does not even describe it.
I am hard pressed to say that any of these "references" would meet the requirements of WP:V. Risker 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ofcourse he didn't. He was obviously referring to the earlier links, which indeed include "user submitted writing" and a "wiki page", just as he is calling them. In addition, I disagree with your interpretation of these references:
  • The article is not on a completely different subject, it is about (another form of) unusual sexual behavior and includes some other exampes, including this one.
  • Definition is from BMEzine, which make a perfect source. Do we now also require our references to be referenced?
  • I don't know if the book is self published, I could not find that information, but I will take your word for it. But, it is a book on body modification and it includes the term
  • The term is used, explained (although not completely correct).
I'll refrain from commenting hereafter. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:31, 30 August 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.