Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yiff (second 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 Redirected to furry fandom. Avi 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yiff

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

Just a dictionary definition. It can't be expand beyond a dicdef because of the lack of reliable sources. Everything relevant is found on the wiktionary page. Ayatollah's hashish 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Delete and Redirect to furry fandom — article has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. - Francis Tyers · 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge, no it hasn't. At least there's nothing to be found in the transwiki log. --Conti|✉ 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Transwiki'd or not, wiktionary has a detailed entry for it. FreplySpang 18:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I wrote the Wiktionary articles from scratch. Uncle G 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Check the history, this article has had a lot of edits made to it, and there used to be a lot more to the article. It does appear to me someone pared this down a ton to get it this small so they could get an easy delete. No vote on the AfD itself, but I just wanted to make sure the article history was considered too, not just how the page currently stands. --UsaSatsui 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Redirect to furry fandom, as was done with furvert. I still think it's odd that rare-and-possibly-nonexistant sexual practices so often get kept (rusty trombone, donkey punch, Cleveland steamer, et al) while strange-but-widespread ones often don't. It's not important enough to make a big fuss over though, and aredirect should suffice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It should be noted that as recently as a week ago the article had a lot more meaningful content and has been gutted by recent edits. I would encourage reviewers to use the history to view the article as it was rather than judging it in its present form. Mwalimu59 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Like this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would consider this to be the last "good" version before the gutting began. Mwalimu59 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yiff is a fairly bizarre phenomenon but a well-established one, and I'm sure there are RS out there that can verify that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to furry fandom - if it later expands into a large section within that article, it can be broken out then. FreplySpang 18:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do note that, as Mwalumu59 points out above, this was a significantly larger article a week or two ago. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reminder; I did look at the earlier version, and this is my conclusion. I think it's entirely possible that sources will be found and the section will grow to the point of spin-off, but it isn't there at the moment. FreplySpang 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Claiming that this article "can't be expand beyond a dicdef" is patently false; the article was significantly more than a dicdef before most of it was deleted last night. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Much of that content was unsupported by any sources at all, however, and had sported requests for sources since 2006-12-02. To demonstrate that it can expand beyond a stub you have to show that there is verifiable content to be placed in the article. Please cite sources to show that your argument that the article is expandable holds water. Uncle G 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to furry fandom. The nom sums it up quite nicely. The larger article was even worse, by the way. (edit: if there were references from reliable sources I wouldn't object to an article.) Voretus 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to furry fandom. I've read the stuff that was deleted; I'm not surprised it was deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Redirect per all the other redirect votes. JuJube 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article can be improved. The criteria for deletion is unverifiable, not unverified. WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT is a redlink for a reason. Milto LOL pia 09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - It seems to me that most of the material in the old revision was totally unsourced, or sourced from Wikifur - which is, in my opinion, most certainly not a reliable source. It won't be more than a dicdef until more reliable sources are found, but I am open to the possibility that they could be (though it seems unlikely that they will be found right now). Just redirect it to furry fandom-from K37 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This page got crippled in the last week - beforehand it was a page that had alot of information in regards to this particular fetish, regardless of the information's source, now it's basically a broken page that is begging for deletion or movement. Restore the page to it's prior state and then verify it. The images were appropriate and I believe they were fair use as well. There are many pages on Wikipedia that are based upon people's opinion rather than directly sourced from an already written document.--DragonChi 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncited information was removed in accordance with WP:V, fair use images without fair use rationale were removed in accordance with WP:FAIR. Doesn't sound like "crippling" to me. - Francis Tyers · 16:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• All that removed information was either unsourced, original research, crystalballery or sourced from non-reliable sources. Our verifiability policy allows everyone to remove information that is unsourced and challanged. The article has had those "citation needed" tags for almost a month and nobody found any adequate source for them. Ayatollah's hashish 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect as noted. Aaronbrick 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its a defention, and as such, it belongs on wikianary --WngLdr34 02:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:RS. SakotGrimshine 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is not just a defenition. There is also "Yiff!: a furry musical". There are many other things that can be put in this article other than a simple defenition, such as critism, orgin of the sound, et cetera. Ramfan2772 07:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Somebody went through and raped it. History shows it had been long and now is a dicdef. SakotGrimshine 12:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment if by "raped" you mean removed uncited and unsupported information in accordance with policy. - Francis Tyers · 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Revert to this previous version. It looks like the article was vandalized recently - check the edit history. Lithorien 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Allow me to expand farther. "Yiff", as a term, isn't just a defination. There are connoations and actions associated with it that can be explained in Wikipedia - I would propose that we allow editors more time to fix the article. Lithorien 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Farther comment What the heck, Ayatollah's hashish? Give editors time to work instead of just nuking it as soon as it's updated. Lithorien 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Old English Yiff has absolutely nothing to do with our furry issue. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a random selection of information. Also, sources like Wikifur are not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources.. Ayatollah's hashish 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, and put that on the talk page. Heck, put that on /my/ talk page, I don't care. Don't just nuke the entire thing - since it was a work in progress. WP:FAITH should apply here, as should WP:3RR, which I really don't want to get into - an edit war. Lithorien 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - So the article is knocked down to three lines and then almost immediately hit with an AfD for being too short. Cute. And I must say it reflects poorly on the AfD when the one who proposed it personally stands guard over the article reverting expansions; do I smell an agenda? I agree that the article's unsourced or poorly sourced content needed to be cleaned out, but it's going to take time to replace that stuff with better, more objective content. As has been noted, unverified is not the same as unverifiable.ShroomofDoom 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [ This is the users first and only edit. - Francis Tyers · 11:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC) ]
  • Comment signing up to vote on this afd seems like furpuppetry Voretus 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It's still a valid point, Voretus. Lithorien 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • When the point has already been made earlier, stuff like that just seems to be an attempt to get a higher keep vote. If the point was completely new, I wouldn't have said anything. Voretus 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a bad-faith nom. Removing the majority of an article (uncited or not) and then immediately AfDing it seems suspect to me. Especially when the nominator made no effort to reply to the ongoing discussion on the talk page until three days later. To be clear, I am not suggesting the content removals were improper -- they appear mostly to be in line with WP:V, barring an acknowledged mistake or two -- but the AfD is too hasty, coming less than one full day after the nominator's first edit to the article. I am also fairly certain that this particular piece of Internet jargon is verifiable and notable. Shimeru 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Of course it's a bad faith nomination! Everyone knows that the Ayatollah is a raving anti-furryite. BTW, those parts were marked with "citation needed" for more than a month before they were removed and no one found any reliable source. Well... if the subject is notable, there should be no problem with finding sources right now, before it gets deleted. Ayatollah's hashish 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  If the article truly should be deleted, there should be no problem having the full article as it was up for deletion, instead of cutting it to a stub and then nominating it. It's dirty pool. Just sayin'.--UsaSatsui 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Found a couple of sources right now. (Yesterday, actually, but who's counting?) They're on the article's talk page. Shimeru 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, already in Wiktionary. Random the Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to furry fandom. For now, wiktionary and an entry in furry fandom are more than enough. Explain there, add info there, and when it grows significantly with WP:RS, then {{main}} it out into a separate article. What a relyiff would that be! NikoSilver 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Revert to revisions as listed above, as per Mwalimu59 above, I believe the AfD after the article paring appears to be in bad faith. --Joe Decker 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You want to revert to the completely unsourced version? Did you even read WP:V ? - Francis Tyers · 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have added the sources I mentioned above to the article. They have been removed, however, by Francis Tyers. In the interest of avoiding an edit war (and 3RR), I will no longer be reverting to restore them, but I did want to point it out here for the closing admin. Shimeru 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I just checked the page history and he kept the reliable source in. Voretus 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Correction: he kept one reliable source in, after I reverted his initial removal of it. Shimeru 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I fail to see how tigerden.com is a reliable source. They seem to have conflicting interests. Voretus 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That was not the source, merely the host. Shimeru 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't seriously believe this is even under discussion. Yes the word is notable, yes, we all know what yiff means. Find some relable sources. I just took a stroll through the article's history, the fact remains it never had a reliable source and had a LOT of OR. Keep voters saying there's "good stuff" in the article but can't produce a source (outside of wikifur or tigerden, which both fail WP:RS) need to find some real sources. I'll give you ONE. "Pornography and sexual representation, by Joe Slad, ISBN 0313315191, 2001, pg 395 , mentions yiff for about a full paragraph. Get digging. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment User is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion, so there's bias that easily violates WP:FAITH. Lithorien 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Elaragirl didn't violate WP:FAITH. That comment did. It's akin to saying that people that are part of the WP:CVG can't vote objectively on computer/video game related VfDs. Voretus 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright, you're right. I'll recant on that statement, since you are 100% correct. Lithorien 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It was an unfair comment, but this is a rather strange deletion vote. She acknowledges that reliable sources exist, so the article is verifiable, even if it weren't currently verified (which I would dispute). It's also clearly notable -- even the short version of the article has two independent print sources. This is a strong argument to keep, not to delete. Also, since people insist on misreading the citations as to web pages, I have removed that aspect and reinstated them in what I hope is a clearer fashion, referring to the original documents themselves. Shimeru 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My vote stands based on the rationale of almost all the keep votes, namely, that the article was cut down and then AfD'd. The full article should be deleted, and to suggest otherwise is to ignore WP Policy. If you want to start with a referenced stub, then delete this pile of OR and start over. I agree there are sources out there that REFERENCE it, but not necessarily that such sources make it notable. The same book, for example, spends a paragraph on minor fetishes such as attraction to clocks and plants. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. On a side note, though, I wasn't under the impression that it's WP policy to delete articles that are verifiable and notable, as you've acknowledged this one is, because of their current (or former) states. Could you please point me to that policy? It sounds as if it would be very useful to cite in future discussions, when I'm on the delete side of the fence. Shimeru 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a very common term in furry fandom and it's quite appropriate to have more than a dictionary entry on it. Bryan Derksen 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  We're not voting the potential in here. Right now it's a dictionary definition and as such it does not belong in here. Ayatollah's hashish 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  It's only a WP:DICDEF currently because people keep reverting it in the middle of people working on it. Lithorien 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  You mean because people keep removing uncited information or information with invalid citations from unreliable sources? - Francis Tyers · 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  I mean exactly what I said, Francis. This is a malicious AfD and both you and Ayatollah know it. Lithorien 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  So people should keep unreliably cited/uncited information in just because it's on VfD? That's not a good thing to think. If so, I could go to any number of articles on VfD and make up a bunch of stuff about them to make them seem like great articles. The information should be more reliably sourced precisely because the article is on VfD. I don't think this is a malicious VfD. Hashish doesn't seem to have an agenda. He/she had not even edited any articles relating to furries before nomming this for deletion. Heck, I think the article as it is should be deleted, but it could be a great article on the subject with sources. Aren't furries usually complaining about MTV and Vanity Fair doing something? Those things are probably about yiff, aren't they? If this article gets deleted, an article that asserts notability and gives cited information beyond a dicdef would most likely be approved by the majority here, and I'm sure that most would not be against a creation. Voretus 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• strong keep on its own merits. The term seems to be standard; the media in the field are increasing; the need of a main page is evident & this is the one. Reply to possible objections: it unquestionable N, and there seem to be several thousand sources. It does not have OR, at least it its present state: it is an appropriate summary of more specialized material. Collecting material is not OR. Collecting material and making an original interpretation of it is OR. It would be OR to use the page to insert a new psychological or social theory of the phenomenon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete and redirect or just redirect. Dicdef. Already very well covered at Wiktionary. --- RockMFR 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw opinion. --- RockMFR 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and revert to this version or somethign close. Wiktionary does not have coverage of the topic nor does wiktionary have the scope to add such coverage (which would need to go beyond a simple definition). Dalf | Talk 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and revert to its former glory. As it was previously, it may not have been a strong article, but it was nonetheless enough to be allowed to live. The fact that it was heavily edited before put into question is unacceptable. The removal of the pictures particularly was completely unnecessary, and there is no excuse for the removal of many so-called "uncited" things. ShadowHare 00:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The removal of the pictures was in line with WP:FAIR. The pictures were copyrighted without any fair use rationale. Reverting to its former glory would restore a substantial amount of unverified information and possible original research. - Francis Tyers · 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable sources. Moogy ^(talk) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable. Everyking 05:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - The only versions of this article that don't have verifiability debates attached to them, don't have two legs to stand on. Previous versions, such as this version, seem to indicate the topic itself may some day be worth an article. That day should come when it is referenced and outgrows the redirect – not as it stands now. Wolphii 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to furry fandom. Unsourced content can (and should) be removed, but this is a likely enough search term to keep around. Eluchil404 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I first heard of this term while using Netflix to catch up on missed episodes of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, where one of the shows focused on a furry-related murder. This was one of the many ocassions where I was able to turn to Wikipedia for a better understanding of a given subject. RFerreira 09:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Citation matters now addressed in what should be acceptable by even the strictest interpretations. Shimeru 10:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The still a dicdef and should be Merged into Furry fandom and Redirected. - Francis Tyers · 12:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Old well known term plus I suspect the "normal" furries prefer that the sexual fetishes be kept out of their main articles. Otoh, I'm not well veresed in furry fandom so maybe those not into the sexual fetishes are a small minority, but I kinda doubt it based upon a recent wiipedia article. JeffBurdges 16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment We seem to have articles about sexual practices, especially non-standard ones, nominated for deletion on the ground of their being dicdefs. Those supporting the deletion are careful to agree that WP is not censored, but the net results of such deletions would be to censor it. This is a general comment, not focussed particularly on the comments made about this article. DGG 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, now that the article has six different, reliable sources, I think it's safe to say that notability has been established. Good work, Shimeru. --Conti|✉ 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  It still remains a dictionary definition. Ayatollah's hashish 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a result of being reliably sourced. We really ought to do without this discrimination based on articles being too close to a "dictionary definition", while actual paperbound encyclopedias have many short articles that would easily fit the same bill. (jarbarf) 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's a dictionary definition plain and simple see WP:NOT. Whispering 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Revert. For now this article is good sourced, much better that many articles in categories Category:Internet culture and Category:Internet forum terminology, and has potential for growth. Sorry for my english. OckhamTheFox 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• (above comment withdraw) Idea: would the text of this article be better suited in a broader article about sexual practices associated with the furry fandom? This could include relevant paraphilia and furry pornography. Wolphii 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to consider a merge into Furry fandom, or if necessary Sexual practices in the furry fandom. - Francis Tyers · 08:39, 8 February 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.