Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human cheese

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 delete. BorgQueen 15:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human cheese

Human cheese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I have researched this subject myself, some, and never found a reliable source discussing the existence (or even hypothetical existence) of cheese made from human breast milk. The article itself cites three sources, only one of which is about cheese (the others are about milk), and that one source (http://oxhouse.org/~brent/writing/human-cheese.txt) is far from being a reliable source. In external links, there is a blog post on the topic as well: again, very much not a reliable source. Also, much of this article as it now stands is original research, extrapolating what the nutritional value of human cheese would be, based on the nutritional value of human milk. Delete —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction. I forgot myself; I did find this Savage Love column discussing the possibility, which I guess is arguable an RS. The columnist makes a few calls, including one to a cheesemaker who says "The department of health might have something to say about that." But is it possible? "You could probably do it, I don't see why not--provided you could get your hands on the milk." See Talk:Cheese#Human Cheese for a little more. I don't think it's nearly enough for an article here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No real sources on this. Friday (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & Friday └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unsourced, fails WP:V. And, incidentally, what do we do with the unwanted babies that would be a by-product of human dairy production on a commercial scale? ;) Tevildo 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Lee Siegel has a suggestion, and its even more horrifying[1] (a passing mention as a horrific idea in a book - no, this is not a substantive source) Bwithh 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The newspaper column is, I think, a fairly famous one which gets reprinted from time to time and has appeared in newspapers across Canada and the United States, since Dan Savage's column is syndicated to several other alternative newspapers. In the same way that Wikipedia has articles debunking urban legends, here we have an article which says "it's possible but probably wouldn't be a very good idea". The points in the article seem adequately referenced (and the fact that some don't mention cheese is fine - the references are illustrating points about human milk), except for the suggestion about it being appropriate for vegan diets. However, I think the article has adequate sources. --Eastmain 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Dan Savage is a notable columnist. However, a bit of speculation in his advice column, does not make an encyclopedia article. There are all kinds of things people can speculate about (why not human bacon, too?) but until it's more real, I don't see how there's enough information on this topic for it to have a proper article. Friday (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. No substantial reliable sources or evidence of widespread use of the concept on this. Breast milk references are not germane to specific topic at hand Bwithh 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment:"Widespread use" is not a sine qua non for inclusion. -THB 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Reliable substantive sourcing is a requirement, and evidence of widespread use is part of the rationale behind WP:NEO and WP:NFT Bwithh 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Then put it in category:Fictional foods. I don't see why this article is any less worthy than ones on fictional schools in anime. -THB 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not defending articles on fictional schools in anime Bwithh 20:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep not clear on what basis this deletion is to occur. It is a sourced article. -THB 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's an inadequately sourced article. We're supposed to care about the character and quality of sources Bwithh 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Okay, so delete all inadequately sourced articles. Then Wikipedia will have about 3,000 articles. -THB 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment This really shouldn't be about whether the article is adequately sourced. Rather, ask yourself if it is possible for this article to be adequately sourced. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Actually, aggressive deletion of inadequately sourced content is something User:Jimbo is quite keen on. Bwithh 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The only source that has been added has been the Dan Savage column. Bwithh 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is just basically dressed-up WP:NFT without notable usage or even interest. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No real content here, and I can't see how any can be added. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - when I found this article I really thought this was a joke. Why isn't it being CSD'ed? I honestly believe there's no such thing as "human milk" and I espescially liked the part about "the taste depends on what you feed your human". SMC 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Human milk is the breast milk that mothers feed to their babies. --Eastmain 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Let me correct that. "Human cheese". SMC 09:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not got any reliable sources and never will have. Does anyone actually think human cheese would pass FDA regulations.--Solentways 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The 16,200 google hits for "human cheese" suggest that people are interested in the concept. Even the nominating editor admits to having done research on this. People are interested! (So, human cheese is notable.) The article is sourced; the Savage Love article (and I can't find the older version on The Stranger website, but I think I remember Dan Savage getting lots of responses to that column) and the external link blog (with pictures!) are a very good start. The milk content sources are useful, relevant, helpful sources that make the case for you-can't-make-human-milk in this article very well. The sources have bit and pieces that, when put together as they are in the article right now, make that case better than any of the sources taken alone. This is a characteristic of a good article, not a characteristic of original research! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to-manual, so the fact that you probably CAN'T make human cheese is not a problem! It is also not a problem that the FDA would not approve of human cheese; wikipedia isn't a list of food approved by the FDA. If people are interested in the concept of "human cheese," having a wikipedia article that tells them that they can't buy it, and probably can't make it, either, is actually really useful. Enuja 09:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Not meeting "original research" and "verifiablity" are two different reasons to delete an article. It's not "original research" because of the Dan Savage article and the blog. Neither of these are particularly "good," reputable sources, but they do strongly show that this concept is extant. However, there are "good" reputable sources for what's in human milk, which makes this article verifiable. As I said above, it's noteable for the sheer number of goole hits (although some of them must be about the sex thing, I don't think most of them are).Enuja 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no decent sources on human cheese (as opposed to human milk) Pseudomonas 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - what I see here is decent sourcing for a speculative topic. You don't have to require that the thing exists (otherwise there would be no Bigfoot article), you only have to show that WP:V is met as far as the speculations and WP:N is met as far as the level of interest in said speculations. From what I've seen, I believe this article has met both. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:57, 18 January 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.