Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced bisexuality (2nd nomination)

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. The body of the article itself is tripe. And as to existence, I can't say that anyone has demonstrated that "forced foo-sexuality" is HARD SCIENCE. I am sure someone out there does these things, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should have an article about them.

[edit] Forced bisexuality

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

Original research; no sources; non-notable. Previous deletion discussion is here, but note that the page was recently moved from "Forced homosexuality" to "Forced bisexuality." Exploding Boy 15:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In the last Afd, it was suggested that time was needed to find sources to support this OR mish-mash. Time has passed, and somehow no previous Keep voters have surfaced to add sourced info. Anyone voting Keep on this page is invited to contribute a source for this entry. IronDuke 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Though it initially may seem to be original research, this article seems to be filled entirely with conjectures without any scholarly sources, making it far, in my opinion, from legitimate research. Since the subject is highly debatable (what really is the root of bisexual tendencies [forced or not]), I would leave such research to the academic experts who can scientifically backup their claims. --David Andreas 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont see that the question of what is at the root of such tendencies is relevant to keeping articles about them, but see further comment below. DGG 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete More like a fetish. There are 1000s of them! Doesn't deserve it's very own page. A paragraph somewhere would suffice. Gold♥ 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 100s of video games. Irrelevant argument. DGG 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Exactly... this is yet more biphobic behavioral reaction. This subject for some reason apparently threatens many, especially male. TednAZ 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. While the more appropriate solution to lack of sourcing is sometimes to add {{sources}} or {{OR}}, there reaches a point when it's simply time for it to go. Someguy1221 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Something like this both requires strong reliable sources and, if true, should have plenty of them. Not one single source of any kind is here. This is 100%-pure original research. --Calton | Talk 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This probably exists, but without sources, should not be an encyclopedia article. Would revisit if sources appear. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Sourcing this will be easy enough to source, at least as a fantasy, depending on what sources are accepted. I think it would be enough to show that it occurs as a common theme in works of the imagination, just as other themes are documented. This will however be called OR, unless one can find a RS talking about such works of the imagination. They are talked about often enough, but typically on web sites and specialized forums-- other sourcing depends to a considerable extent on chance finds. I've succeed in 2 or 3 cases, and failed in an equal number, all with great effort --& sifting through sites I do not really want to be associated with-- that I am not about to repeat article by article.

As an event in real life, there is similarly no need to demonstrate that it occurs in real life, just that it is thought to occur. But the sourcing problems are at least as great, and even more so for actual occurrence. The mainstream sources still avoid the topics.

A specialized wiki that will accept the sources that do exist is one obvious solution (accepting that in practice there are exceptions to not censored), but we removed the link to one such, wipipedia, now london fetish forums. There is also a wikia Forum:BDSM (I have deliberately not put in links, or even written out the links. I don't do things against consensus, even when I think the consensus a little short-sighted.) DGG 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "Lack of sources is not a reason to delete", particularly when a Google search indicates forced bisexuality does exist as a phenomenon. If we deleted all the articles on Wikipedia just because they didn't have any sources. We'd be left with the FAs, Jimbo, and Daniel brandt. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has been tagged as needing sources for quite some time. Anyway, the reasoning is never simply that sources are not provided, but a suspicion that reliable sources might actually not exist at all. If the content is not verifiable, it simply doesn't belong here. Someguy1221 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No-one tried google scholar. is the search: " On the prevalence and roles of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: Report of an empirical study" and "The prevalence and some attributes of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: A second report" both make reference to forced bisexuality. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Well, on those I can't comment, having no access to the relevant journals  :-( (or is that a good thing? I really don't know...) Someguy1221 09:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, you dont need to access the journals. Simply reading the titles of the journal articles and the google result summary is often enough to determine whether academics are in fact talking about this subject. If they are, that is often good enough to establish the topic as being notable. John Vandenberg 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems I gave up too early. (grin) . For biomedical stuff, one can go on more that titles, because PubMed will have abstracts for anything substantial 1965+. And I and others can email articles from most journals, or post extracts. DGG.

• Keep I've added the refs, with PMIDs. There seem to be more, and also some for other articles. ASB seems a useful journal. DGG 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Move The content of the article describes generally consensual, not "forced", activities. At the very least the page should be moved and given a more accurate title. Neitherday 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

the term is called "forced" because it is a roleplaying thing. The person being forced has to agree to it before hand, like BDSM, but after that pretends they really, really don't want to. If that's what the term is called then we should go with it. Shall we renamed Guinea pig because they are neither porcine nor from guinea? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. That IS the name, Neitherday... you cannot change the name simply because YOU do not like it since you deem it an oxymoron. There are many such anomalies in our culture - we cannot redefine that which has already been defined and like it or not, Forced Bisexuality aka Forced Bi is strongly defined in today's culture. TednAZ 09:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Forced Bi is beyond a fetish and according to many psychology therapists, it is not all that unusual, as many are saying here. Forced Bi is becoming one of the fastest growing experiences or services from dominatrices and becoming quite prevalent in marital cuckold relationships. The passage that says these acts (MMF) are consensual is partly correct. There are, however, numerous instances where forced bi is used via dares, bets, blackmail, punishment, proof of loyalty and even reciprocation for a bi female encounter (FFM) or request - sauce for the goose, so to speak. I came here to get a definitive expository view of of Forced Bisexuality, which until recently, here on Wiki, didn't exist. I even considered birthing an article about this cultural phenomena myself. It is biphobic to delete something so prevalent amongst bisexual, bi-curious or even straight men as well as women. TednAZ 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do you have sources for all of this? It's not biphobic - plus I'm not sure how this would be relevant to bisexual people, since in their case, it wouldn't be "forced"... Mdwh

• Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – insufficient sources. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Variance of sexuality and sexual practices may make some folks squirm but that's hardly a reason to claim someone else's sexual interests are not notable or beyond research and sourcing. This practice seems to be within a minority of a minority and mostly closeted or underground activity that will take more time than mainstream articles to fully develop. Instead of finding reasons to dismiss and delete such information it might be a good use of energy to provide research showing the article is not notable and non sourceable. Benjiboi 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Agreed, but see above, it seems there as been a previous AfD, and still no one has provided the sources. Mdwh 14:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Certainly this phenomenon exists, but this article seems to be original research, and there is no evidence that this is classified as a paraphilia. Note that I have no objection to an article on the subject matter that is backed by sources, and my vote here should not be taken as support for speedy-deleting any future article that shares a similar name. Mdwh 14:15, 1 July 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.