Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbirth

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 of the debate was No consensus. Adam ^(talk) 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbirth

This non notable rubbish is part of the silliness that damages Wikipedia's reputation. Rense 06:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, utter rubbishness. --Soumyasch 06:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oh god delete (non-notable yuckcruft.) Grandmasterka 08:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Grandmasterka. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not silliness. 4chan's /d/ has tons of this stuff. There actually is a market for this, which is sort of sad and disgusting but nonetheless real. I won't vote, but I would just like to remind the voters that this is not a hoax. - CorbinSimpson 10:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak, grossed-out keep. As pointed out, this looks like a genuine paraphilia, so we might as well delete most all of Category:Paraphilia if fetishes aren't notable. I wouldn't really object to deletion on grounds of lack of sources, though; plus this does seem really fringe. Sandstein 14:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: In keeping with the grossness, this AfD has somehow become surgically attached to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bak et halleluja. Sandstein 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have fixed this. If the closing admin needs to see the history before my vote, you'll need to look there for it. Kotepho 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep seems to be er.... real. Wow...Roodog2k 14:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for the love of god, delete. This may be all too real, but this is fetishcruft. --Deville (Talk) 14:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless it's asserted in the article that this concept has been discussed in the psychiatric literature, it should be deleted. Otherwise, Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming an authority on "Unbirth." Brian G. Crawford 16:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, rubbish. --Terence Ong 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ewww... err, I meant keep. Heard of it before. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete •Jim62sch• 20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's real. Night Gyr 20:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A brief mention in paraphilia would be sufficient. Just because something is real doesn't mean it's notable enough for an encyclopedia. Fishhead64 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Strange but quite real; I've actually run into examples the stuff. Ew. Also, Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of, um, not grossing people out or whatever the complaint was. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Anything but delete. Should be mentioned somewhere on WP. If keeping it is not viable, I vote for a merge to Paraphilia. - CorbinSimpson 00:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn fringe trivia. --Fire Star 03:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm only voting keep because I don't know a good merge target. Kotepho 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Paraphilias need to meet the same conditions as everything else, such as WP:V. Random fetish websites go no more to verifiability than random fan websites do. JoshuaZ 03:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Josh. --Khoikhoi 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, verifiability is questionable. If verified, slight merge to paraphilia. Stifle 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. -- noosphere 22:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I just used it to research a freelance article, as I often do with the less mainstream entries in Wiki. Articles like this are invaluable for getting direction. Please don't delete just because it grosses some people out, or sounds unbelievable -- it is real, I have heard of it, and I could never find reliable info on it anywhere but in a place like Wiki! Jamie K. Wilson -- 22:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR and if it was verified it should be a line in an article, not its own one. Midgley 23:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the other weird unbirth fetish above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:59, 6 April 2006 (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.