Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endosomatophilia

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 delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endosomatophilia

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

An unverifiable neologism that has no assertion of notability. What this subject is not:

• A term recognized or used in any medical, academic, psycological, psychiatric or literary field or work.
• Verifiable, no reliable source has ever been found on "Endosomatophilia"
• Notable, no reason or claim has ever been put forward why this is a notable subject.
• Encyclopedic, with no reliable sources or any assertion of relavence to anything this is a dicdef on the level of the Urban dictionary.

This is one of several terms created by a memeber of a fetish internet forum to describe a shared fantasy of some of the members of the discussion board. It's not a real term and this article has been created already once (along with Unbirth and Vorarephilia) by members of their respective internet community in an effort to advertise and legitimize their sexual fetish. This article was already created once and deleted with a Prod. Unbirth was redirected to Vorarephilia the frequent target of soapboxing by the aformentioned internet fetish community. NeoFreak 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• 'Delete' I recognize the difficulty of sourcing in this area, but I remain unconvinced that this one has any actual use.DGG (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC). See below for my changed !vote. DGG (talk)

If weirdness were a cause for deletion Wikipedia would not exist.

Endosomatophilia has become a widely used term on the internet and on IRC (see a Google search). It will not just go away as a term. It deserves a definition that explains its presence as a commonly used term -- by giving the present meaning of its usage.

It is definitely not a pleasant term -- to most people. In a similar sense, atonality in music is not pleasant -- to most people, but deserves (and has) a definition.

Further, because some commonly used term is not a fantasy of mine or yours -- it is not sufficient reason to debase or censor any one of the many thousands of "internet communities".

I am not an ACLU attorney, but am trying to stand up for freedom of speech. In that regard Wikipedia has a fine reputation... up till now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.180.52 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and its policy on original research. Our guidlines on neologisms and reliable sources would no doubt be of help as well. It would behove you to understand what wikipedia is and is not before you add any additional insights. NeoFreak 08:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you NeoFreak, I had already looked at those categories and compared many other terms supported by Wikipedia to the exact same criteria for Endosomatophilia... and found this term as being less a neologism, more reliable, and as well documented as those that are indeed included.

I tried to overlook your misspelling above, as we all make mistakes. I hope your mindset is flexible, as so many people have minds that are closed and stenotic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources are provided for verification to expand this beyond a dictionary definition.-Wafulz 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 03:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete the term "Endosomatophilia" has never been used in the Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Contemporary Sexuality, The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Studies in Gender and Sexuality (or a few other sexology journals I searched). It also generates zero hits in a search of the ISI World of Science. This term is totally unknown to the field of sexology, let alone the broader fields of psychology and medicine, it's a neologism. Pete.Hurd 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, neologism. Keb25 03:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Pete.Hurd is perfectly correct--this is not an academic subject. But possibly there is material elsewhere.DGG (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I see a mention in the article on "Unbirth" in Wikifur ; following the links there a little seems to give the impression that this is in fact not very prominent. But whatever can be imagined, someone will find of sexual interest. DGG (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment omd! It has a brief mention in 'wikifur'- that's clearly WP:RS and this should be given featured article status.:) Not serious:) For those who have contributed to this article- you might also like to contribute to a wiki started solely for fetish subjects here, [1] I expect there are some other ones online too. They won't have the same rules for reliable sources, annd words used on messageboards etc might be more acceptable for an article to them.Merkinsmum 10:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave that reference as a lead, not as a RS for a keep. It helps to have some information about how its used to decide & in case someone wants to work on it. I don't really have the least interest or even willingness to explore the necessary sources. DGG (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

YEet you want it kept on the off chance that someone else might be inclined to follow an unreliable source and then might be able to find a verifiable fact for what has so far proven to be a made up word for a sub-genre of a sub-section of a nearly unheard of internet born fetish? Come to think of it I'm not sure that this article meets a single criteria for inclusion at all. Can you think of a single redeeming feature of this article besides the vauge idea that this is an area that is "hard to source"? Wouldn't that be a reason not to keep it?NeoFreak 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable. Recury 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vore is verifiable. Unbirth is verifiable. The tow concepts might even be related. This, however, is not verifiable. humblefool® 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Short of actual, existing examples of secondary source citation, this seems to be a clear violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY --ApolloRPL 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable neologism - almost meets CSD requirements G4 and A7...James Sugrono_{Contributions} 07:24, 6 October 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.