Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear of Anguish

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer page move discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pear of Anguish

Per a lengthy discussion on Talk:Pear of Anguish, there is no evidence that this device existed in the form described. Wikipedia does not need articles about every sex toy in the world; absent of any evidence of the 'historical uses' of this object, there is no need for an article on it. Please Delete. The Land 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lincolnite 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, there are references, the "lengthy discussion" shows that there is debate about the historical validity of sources that are centuries-old. There is similar debate about whether Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas, but that doesn't mean we AFD his article - it means we deal with the controversies inside the article. As a further note, you may be interested to see that Category:Sex toys indicates we probably do keep articles on sex toys, and there has been zero evidence this is a "sex toy". It's either a centuries-old hoax, or it's legit...it's definitely not a sex toy and it's definitely not unverified. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please spell out where the references are. I can't easily see them. I can see a load of modern websites talking about them; I can see a Czech museum exhibiting something that looks like a stopper for a bottle of wine under the name; I can see exactly one purported source for any historic origin of this device anywhere on the web [1] referring to [2]: we are well into the territory of original research here. The Land 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unless the article (which seems like it should be title "choke pear") is entirely re-written to emphasize that this is not a real medieval device, but a modern hoax (If it in fact was, it needs much better references than those BS sites). Even if this occurs, the article must verify that it is a notable hoax.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - apparent hoax, per nom. My Alt Account 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If it is a hoax the article should be changed to confirm it's a hoax. Seano1 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It would have to be a notable hoax. Otherwise, WP:NFT applies. My Alt Account 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Not that it matters at all, but I have heard of this device, and occasionally used in the context of the Marquis de Sade. I just wish I had some actual sources to back up what I'm going on about. --Wafulz 23:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Hoax or real, it's apparently a notion of long standing. Merits at least a stub, and more as we get consensus around what it actually is. William Pietri 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not verifiable. :) Dlohcierekim 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and stub per William Pietri. It's at least notable for the controversy over what purpose it served. Kasreyn 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - There are references in torture books. I haven't seen it mentioned in history books; but it DOES show up in books dedicated to torture and execution. I found a book at my local library published in the 80's that included this (this one here), so if this were a hoax - it's been a long one, and STILL HAS NOT been proven to be fake as of yet. And even if it were proven to be a hoax - it would be a notable one to have lasted for so long. Deleting this article just because evidence is lacking is absolutely no reason to come to the conclusion that this device is a hoax, then simply delete it. That in itself, would be original research. The use of the device has been verified by most torture books and museums to be what it is... and while they may be possibly unreliable, we can only for now, just take note of that. Lastly, considering its extent in time, hoax or not - people ARE looking for this article. -- Shadowolf 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  Actually that is just recycling the same non-academic tourist museum fluff. It is not a real book but a catalog of the Italian "museum"'s travelling exhibition. By "long" you mean thirty years? Do we have a page on Yetis too? Actually as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, surely everything that lacks evidence should be deleted? Everything. How would it be original research? You mean there is a value judgement implicit in refusing to accept an article? How? Why? I hate to claim knowledge of torture books but I assure there is no credible printed reference to this. It has not been verified by anyone except this Italian tourist "museum". I have asked for proof for this article for more than a year. I have tried to track down every reference. I have yet to see a shred of proof or even a credible reason to think it existed. Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, sir, we DO Have a page on Yetis (... just as we actually document sex toys as well). They are encyclopedic as commonly documented urban legends and hoaxes (there are others - Lochness monster, Paul is Dead, etc. No, it's not wrong to question the legitamacy of this device, but just because you feel the sources are unreliable does not mean we can/should not cite their claims - a claim can be used to source information, but you just have to let the reader know that it is that - a claim. Let the reader decide for him/her-self the verifiability of the provided sources. In fact, it is totally possible to write a section questioning its verification under this article (in fact - see iron maiden under "Known Usage" for a short stub-type example), but it is no reason to delete it. In fact, if a lot of you think it is a hoax, I'd even encourage to write such a section to create that "awareness". Still, sadly, despite having researched this for so long, it is totally possible that you may NEVER uncover its truth (especially if it is as old as they say it is). That does not mean that it could in no way be real (and it certainly does not mean we should suddenly just give up searching for the undeniable truth!). That also does mean we throw away the POPULAR theories involved with Jack the Ripper's supposed identity (or even the theories of "Possible Other Victims" in Jack the Ripper), who Deepthroat really was before his public revelation ("Other Suspected Candidates"), the theoretical uses of Stonehenge, and so on. In fact, as an encyclopedic site, I'm positive Wikipedia allows for claims and theories as long as they are cited to be such, and reflect popular opinion - simply because there can never be answers for everything. -- Shadowolf 19:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Numerous citations concerning the Pear of Anguish can be found in reference texts on torture. The device also appears in Ken Russell's film "The Devils," where it is shown being used on an accused witch. This movie was released in 1971, so if the Pear of Anguish is a hoax, it is one that has been perpetuated for over 35 years, and thus notable. --Doctor Dan 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Which "texts on torture" does it appear in? As someone who has gone over the literature I assure you the opposite is true. There are no credible references to it at all. Anywhere. Who cares if it is in Ken Russell's film? Just because an urban legend survives less than 40 years does not make it credible as far as I can see. Why do you think it is notable if the only reference to it is this film and a bad private-sector museum in Italy (which may be run by a Ken Russell fan for all I know)? Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mention above, if it's an urban legend, it is one that has survived for over 100 years. As others point out, we have articles on plenty of urban legends, hoaxes, and frauds. It's possible to have a true article on an untrue thing. And often useful as well. Consider the example you raise above: Yeti. William Pietri 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Needless to say I do not think that Wikipedia is improved by unsourced, unverifiable, frankly incredible stories with no rational basis whatsoever. Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There are PLENTY of Wikipedia entries of "frankly incredible stories with no rational basis whatsoever," e.g. ghosts, demons, Loch Ness Monster, fictional movie characters, etc. Does it really matter whether the device actually existed in Medieval Europe or not for it to have a Wikipedia entry explaining what it is? --Doctor Dan 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If this is kept, the closing admin should consider moving it to Choke pear, which seems to be the older name, and produces far more google hits.

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.