Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockfight (human)


 * 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. Contrary to Bearian, the article cited nothing remotely resembling a reliable source. The one "dictionary" entry cited was a copy of the Wikipedia article, and admitted as much.  Sandstein  20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cockfight (human)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a kinky neologism, and the article makes a few claims that are not backed via the WP:RS requirements. Serious consideration and saucy double-entendres are welcome for this discussion. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Kinky is the perfect word to describe it! -- Vh o scythe  '''chatter 13:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Black  ngold29   16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * stiff delete per nom. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I found the article rather entertaining, it's hard to call it notable. Seems to be a great example of WP:NEO and not worthy of inclusion if it remains unsourced. ~ mazca  t 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:Neologism: Doesn't sound like many people have taken it up; phrase sounds like someone's just jerking around. Lack of citations (except for early crowing for websites) indicates author may have already blown his load.  Can try to re-erect topic and come again if wide-spread practice ends up attracting harder evidence. --Closeapple (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete sounds like a load of old bollocks to me. Phnarr phnarr! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's WP:Complete bollocks Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is already sourced, and I shall add more sources showing that it is practised in several countries.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those "sources" are just links to (NSFW) external websites. Reliable sources demonstrating encyclopedic notability would meet Verifiability, from WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If something is on a web site, it is published. That's just as well, because if all articles without references to hard-copy books were deleted, that would be a lot of deletions.  It is not clear what third-party means in this context.  Some of what is published in these sites may well be written by people who have been involved in such activities; does that invalidate their contributions?--Whipmaster (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From the first sentence of the policy page Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, [...], whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". The external websites you link to clearly fail to qualify as reliable sources. They are, as you point out, they are hardly independent of the topic, nowhere near third party, or secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's verifiable all right. LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (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.