Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cases of penis removal


 * 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. I'm closing it as no-consensus so it can be started over without the vitriol, nationalism, and personal abuse--and after a short time for some improvements--at least a week. This does not represent any opinion on the merits. However, I advise that the article would be much stronger if the few instances of accidental removal were removed from the article, as well as case of attempted removal, or removal of the foreskin. Personally, I think there might possibly be fewer objections if cases with only a single source were removed also.  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 13 November 2011


 * Amendment (November 19, 2011) It was admitted that the entire article or almost the entire article was a copyvio violation at User talk:Karfks and the article was speedy deleted as such by another admin.   DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

List of cases of penis removal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is Completely unencyclopedic. I hope no one will assume bad faith since I just registered my account today, but I have been on wikipedia as an anon ip before. Not only that, there is probably copyvio in this article if one looks at all the references and uses google translate for foreign language references. It violates NOT and NOT.

Violation of selection criterea
It also violateds LSC: selection criterea states that "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself:


 * If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
 * Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
 * Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?

Common selection criteria

 * Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.
 * Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.
 * Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

Existing lists are mostly consisted of events which have articles of their own on wikipedia due to their notability''' For example, see List of serial killers by number of victims, List of assassinations and assassination attempts, List of bank robbers and robberies, and List of kidnappings

almost all of their entries link to articles of their own, List of kidnappings has Mary Jemison, List of bank robbers and robberies has Banco Central burglary at Fortaleza, List of assassinations and assassination attempts has Ehud, List of serial killers by number of victims has Luis Garavito. Very few red links are included

the only two entries at list of cases of penis removal which have their own article are John and Lorena Bobbitt and Sada Abe. the rest are all unimporant cases about a random guy mostly in china, mr joe six pack getting his penis cut off by his wife, they aren't notable, they don't have their own wikipedia articles.

These lists specifically state, "The following is a list of some of the most famous assassinations and assassination attempts. It is not intended to be exhaustive." "This is a list of famous bank robberies, bank robbers and gangs involved in bank robberies."


 * As far as I can tell from the edit history, this artcile was created since the list was originally at Penis removal, and was getting way too long for the page. To list every single case of penis removal will just cause this article to go on indefinetly until it reaches some garanguatan size. to those who say that we can keep some cases and not others, there is no justification on how one case is more important than the other, and on the whole, cases of penis removal in xxx country is not an encyclopedic topic and completely irrelevant to wikipedia.


 * This article is damaging wikipedia's reputation, is completely unencyclopedic (and therefore fits criterea for deletion). And as far as I can tell, someone delibereately focused on China for some reason Bunser (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI one of the images on the article is a fake- was copied from barenakedislam, which is an anti islam blog, not only is it a hate blog against muslims, the blog gave absolutely no source for the image, which was most likely fake since actualy news articles about the incident gave no such picture, only a picture of the woman. blogs are not WP:RS and therefore the image has to be deleted as well.Bunser (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And on another point- nearly all of the sources used, are news articles, most of them in the Chinese languages. I count a few english language news articles, and even fewer sources from some books, which are for very few of the cases. If one was to purge all news related material from the list, then probably less than ten cases would remain.Bunser (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

the list is not well sourced. most of its sources are tabloid like news articles, with only a few books, and most of the articles are in a foreign language- chinese. this list actually constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, by putting together unconnected incidents.

the only cases of actual cultural value are the Bobbit case and the Sade Abe case, both of which are known extensively in the USA and Japan and have had movies made of them. Everything else is essentially random junk. We have a special article for the Bobbitts at John and Lorena Bobbitt and another at Sada Abe

Imagine if I culled news articles regarding every time a burglary happened, and created an article called "list of Burglary incidents", and used those articles as references, while sprinkling in a few book sources about burglaries. My desire to delete the article has nothing to do with the type of content it represents (relating to sexual body parts)Bunser (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Common selection criteria" fails completly. Take a look at List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, for example. Most crashes are non-notable, but the list is encyclopedic and stands up in its own right. Like this one does.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bunser, you jackass, this article has been here and is staying here. I've made this article ten times its original size. Take your butthurt opinion somewhere else, you chink.Nayyurc (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And this article isn't the thing thats damaging wikipedia. your precense here is damaging wikipedia, if you've got a problem with the list get your chink ass off wikipedia.Nayyurc (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And bunser nobody gives a shit that barenakedilsam is a blog against muslims. deal with it, its called freedom of speech. And the photo is quite hilarious, it should stay regardless of whether it can be found on another source since it illustrates the situation clearly.Nayyurc (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per my explanation above. Plus its too random, incoherent, and completely non encyclopedic. Bunser (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Struck previous "Delete." by Bunser. Bunser's AFD nomination is already there, so an additional Delete !=vote is unneeded and inappropriate. Edison (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list nor a particularly long article. Each case is referenced, and is not in violation of any copyright that I have seen, though I don't speak Chinese. English language sources are given where they are available. I'm not sure one can nominate an article for 'probable copyright vio' expecting it to be there. If any is found, I am happy to rewrite. The article has been well maintained, cleaned up and stewarded for at least a year. It does not focus on China. There are cases mentioned from Japan, the US, the Philippines, Turkey, Viet Nam and many other countries, though it seems to be a practice that happens, or is documented, more in East Asia. It is not trivial but gives contextual detail for each case and is a fine encyclopaedic list. Span (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic (penis removal) is notable. Having a list of cases of penis removal is perfectly encyclopedic, just as we have things like List of unsolved deaths and List of cases of police brutality. It's hardly "indiscriminate", the inclusion criteria is very clearcut. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete How is it more encyclopedic than rambling list of other losses of body parts, such as testes, breasts, eyes, toes, tongues, fingers, noses, or ear lobes, or lists of females who underwent ritual mutilation of their genitals? Most have one reference, enough for verification but not enough to show that each such amputation was a notable event. Seems like miscellaneous information. Edison (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A random collection of sensational information that deserves no place in a serious encyclopedia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Very well put together subject on what seems to be a notable occurance. Well sourced and one of WP's better lists, with clear inclusion criteria and plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. The comment of "This article is damaging wikipedia's reputation, is completely unencyclpoedia" is quite frankly, rubbish (compare the recent Halloween frontpage and Gropecunt Lane, for example).  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * not a notable occurence.- there are reports in the media all the time about freak accidents, will we compile lists of every time people have their nose chopped off or get severed in half? plus, take the number of incidents in the article, and divide it by the number of men in the entire world, and it will be less than 1%. even dividing it by the number of men in all of china will still end up as less than 1%. Also, Gropecunt lane does not damage wikipedia's repuation for the same reason the articles on sex and penis don't- they are actually relevant, encyclopedic material which appear in other encyclopedias as well, not based on tabloid sensationalism,a nd not exclusively sourced by news articles.Bunser (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "take the number of incidents in the article, and divide it by the number of men in the entire world, and it will be less than 1%. even dividing it by the number of men in all of china will still end up as less than 1%." WTF?! Is that the best rationale you have? Seriously? There are lots of secondary sources from multiple reliable outlets. End of.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong- the only secondary sources are a few books which describe isoalted incidents of people having their penises cut off, and those books are not even about genital mutilation, one of them is about an orphanage, another about law in soviet russia, etc., I fail to see how the list is documented by "reliable secondary sources", when those few sources for those few incidents aren't even about penises. The majority of the cases are sourced by newspaper articles, and foreign languages ones at that.Bunser (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT then, instead of bitching about it! It's not rocket science to remove them.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note Lugnuts has been reported for using swear words and incivility during this debate.Bunser (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant coverage in multiple independent and secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is significant coverage of each incident in what are mostly primary sources i.e. news articles, not significant coverage of multiple events of penis removal that constitutes a list. We are not going to create individual articles for every single incident, plus, given the nature of this, the list could possibly go on indefinetly until it becomes so big, people's browsers will crash. And again, NOT and NOT.Bunser (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reminder- the list is not well sourced. most of its sources are tabloid like news articles, with only a few books, and most of the articles are in a foreign language- chinese. this list actually constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, by putting together unconnected incidents.Bunser (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * News articles are reliable sources. You clearly don't understand this.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * you clearly don't understand the fact that the news articles are about each incident, I fail to notice a single source which lihnks all these incidents together into a relevant topic. All of the secondary sources (books) are NOT about penis removal- one is aobut law in soviet russia, the other is about an orphanage in china.Bunser (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Completely worthless as an encyclopedia article, this indiscriminate collection contains very few cases that created significant historic or cultural news value and too many cases of angry anonymous Chinese women running around with knives. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * speaking of which, the only cases of actual cultural value are the Bobbit case and the Sade Abe case, both of which are known extensively in the USA and Japan and have had movies made of them. Everything else is essentially random junk. We have a special article for the Bobbitts at John and Lorena Bobbitt and another at Sada Abe, no need for this list.Bunser (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete; I don't see a point in including this information beyond laughs. It's like a blog tracking penis removals. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note this !vote has no policy based rationale.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice lugnuts fails to point out where Richard of earth said he "didn't like" the topic.Bunser (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When I reminded Lugnuts that comiling a list of penis removals is comparable to compiling a list of burglaries every time it appeared in the news, Lugnuts suggested that go ahead with it. I seriously suggest that Lugnuts go over the list of what wikipedia is NOT, especially Not,and Not, and Not. This list violates all three.Bunser (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lugnuts is also abusing the definition of WP:GNG- each of the news articles is about ONE case/incident of a guy getting his penis hacked off, NONE of the news articles are reports on the phenomenon of penises getting cut off in general or lists of men getting penises hacked off. GNG specifically stated that "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". see No original research- when the editor of the list linked all these unrelated cases, he committed original research- none of the cases were related to each other, and each news articles was about one incident. As I said, stringing them together is orignal research and WP:SYNTHESIS.Bunser (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, or come back when you are relevant.  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "abuse" is used as a synonym for misuse in this case, I fail to see how my comment is an attack, "misuse" is an adjective which describes what you are doing with WP:GNG- ignoring or not seeing the clause that says no original research. You have also failed to assume good faith of User:Richard-of-Earth.Bunser (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your input. In fact, I do like the page and enjoyed reading it. I also think it should be deleted. People get mutilated all the time. Just because these incidents involve male genitalia doesn't make them notable. The article has a newspaper feel to it. We're suppose to go "OMG! Another man's dick got wacked!" Statistics about how often it happens is appropriate to Wikipedia in an article context, but not a list of incidents. WP:INDISCRIMINATE apples. If the list is suppose to show how often it happens then it is a synthesis and original research. My opinion stands; deleted it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep in mind your presenting rational for keeping or deleting this article. Addressing each other's or any editor's motives is not helpful to the closing admin. The admin wants to know your opinion of the article and how policy applies.  Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article really points out a flaw in WP:GNG. Just because something can be cited, doesn't mean we should have an encyclopedia article about it.  Another example is Social impact of thong underwear which was closed as a "keep" where most folks who said "keep" blindly followed policy without thinking about it.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * delete: Do we have a list of homicides? We don't, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  (And if there really is any copyright violation in the article, we ought to delete it regardless of the number of votes to keep.)  68.55.112.31 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a heavily sourced article, yes, but I likewise believe it runs afoul of WP:NOT as an indiscriminate collection of information; indiscriminate because in the overwhelming number of cases, no evidence has been proffered as to why this incident or that is notable or noteworthy. We don't have a List of rape victims - and that's a good thing - for similar reasons.  The one other reason likewise applies here: that the list is overwhelmingly of cases within the last ten years, the great majority of which presumably involve still-living people, and such sensationalism certainly runs afoul of the intent of WP:BLP.  Finally, to those Keep proponents who claim that this is not an indiscriminate list, the main section bears the heading "Selected cases of penis removal" - "selected" according to which "nondiscriminate" criteria, exactly?  Ravenswing  02:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I fail to see the deletion nomination make its case. I don't see how WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH applies since this article is not using the events to advance any conclusions or positions.  I don't see how this is an indiscriminate collection of information since there is a selection criteria explicitly mentioned in the code that cases need to meet to be listed in the article.  Looking through the article's history I see listings being removed because the cases do not meet the criteria.  So far, I'm not convinced of this article's nomination to be deleted. Leger (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong- the only entries which were removed were ones that had zero sources, and therefore untenable to keep since they could be seen as defamation. (anonymous ip addreses commenly insert their friends names into wikipedia in order to embarass them). No sourced entries were removed because they allegedly did not meet criterea. In short, the only reason given for removal was lack of sources- not criterea at all
 * Plus, the selection crieterea itself is orignal research. I could see no source justifying the selection criterea.Bunser (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Sorry, but deletion nomination not persuasive enough to me. States 'probably copyvio' but no specific examples cited.  States 'indiscriminate collection' but article has inclusion criteria.  States 'damaging wikipedia's reputation, is completely unencyclopedic' is subjective appealing to emotions.  States 'delibereately focused on China' places motive on article's editors and ignores possibility subject may be more predominate in that part of the world. Sixpence (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the inclusion criterea has no source itself. The standard procedure for lists on wikipedia is to include cases which have their own wikipedia article, and to have a wikipedia article the event/person must be notable, most of the cases onf list of penis removal don't have their own articles


 * Existing lists are mostly consisted of events which have articles of their own on wikipedia due to their notability''' For example, see List of serial killers by number of victims, List of assassinations and assassination attempts, List of bank robbers and robberies, and List of kidnappings


 * almost all of their entries link to articles of their own, List of kidnappings has Mary Jemison, List of bank robbers and robberies has Banco Central burglary at Fortaleza, List of assassinations and assassination attempts has Ehud, List of serial killers by number of victims has Luis Garavito. Very few red links are included


 * the only two entries at list of cases of penis removal which have their own article are John and Lorena Bobbitt and Sada Abe. the rest are all unimporant cases about a random guy mostly in china, mr joe six pack getting his penis cut off by his wife, they aren't notable, they don't have their own wikipedia articles.


 * These lists specifically state, "The following is a list of some of the most famous assassinations and assassination attempts. It is not intended to be exhaustive." "This is a list of famous bank robberies, bank robbers and gangs involved in bank robberies."Bunser (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Something's odd about User:Sixpence. His last edit to wikipedia was four years ago in 2007, and that edit consisted of adding entries to the Penis removal article. He came back after four years of not editing for this? Sorry about commenting on the contributer, but this is really odd lookingBunser (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: 1) No example of copyvio claim. 2) The article does have a selection criteria. Having an article on every entry is just 1 common type of selection criteria.  There are other types (see WP:LSC) as long as membership criteria is based on reliable sources.  News articles are reliable secondary sources.  Primary sources are documents directly associated with people in the events (for example, wife's diary, husband's love letter to mistress, etc.) 3) Advances the claim/conclusion one of the severed penis images is fake because few news articles publish it and original source does not cite its source.  One possibility and more likely explanation few news articles publish it because of censorship of severed genitalia in a for-profit commercial product.  All the news articles I was able to find with only the woman's image also does not cite their source.  It may be more likely as a government entity the police released the woman/penis photos into the public domain and news agencies exercise discretion in usage Esuc (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Esuc doesn't seem to understand that blogs are not WP:RS. Bare naked islam is a blog, and search for "monju begum penis" (begum is the name of the woman), on google images, the only place where the image of the penis in the ziploc bag turns up is on barenakedislam. And due to the fact that barenakedislam is not only a blog, but is a hate site towards muslims, renders it unreliable. in Addition, most males in bangladesh are circumcised since its a muslim country. The foreskin on that image was not circumsied, rendering it most likely a fake. Esuc does not understand that the image has to be deleted' regardless of whether this AFD succeeds or not, because #1 the ONLY place it was found on was the hate blog barenaked islam, #2, explain why a government agency in bangladesh, a muslim country, would release an image to an american anti islamic blog?Bunser (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I also add that it was quite rash for User:Esuc to select a photo from an Islam hating blog to put into the article as Bunser mentioned, since it was neither a reliable source since it was a blog, and the fact that it was openly against muslims should have tipped him off that it was unreliable. I too, searched google images for monju begum, bangladesh penis, the only place where the image turned up was barenakedislam, so it must be condcluded that barenakedislam was the only source which posted the image, and possibly created it.Haydar Haydar (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And bunser nobody gives a shit that barenakedilsam is a blog against muslims. deal with it, its called freedom of speech. And the photo is quite hilarious, it should stay regardless of whether it can be found on another source since it illustrates the situation clearly.Nayyurc (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bunser - why are you hounding every Keep comment? Just admit defeat and move on.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its indicative of your behaviour when you presume that you've won the aFd, when the aFd hasn't even been closed yet. You were the one who attacked me when I replied to Cirt. I have not replied to Tom Morrison's nor Spanglej's comments on this afd, both of which were keep.Bunser (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an attack before you go crying to the admin again. I want further explination to your comment of "take the number of incidents in the article, and divide it by the number of men in the entire world, and it will be less than 1%. even dividing it by the number of men in all of china will still end up as less than 1%." What on earth does that mean? How is this relevant (as in "come back when you're relevant...") Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong comment. You said, "News articles are reliable sources. You clearly don't understand this."Bunser (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. Please explain your "...dividing it by the number of men in all of china.." comment so we can all understand.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete- I have to agree about the OP's reference to- LSC, since this list is about living people, to which the conditions at Wikipedia:LSC#Selection_criteria apply to. the people themselves have to be notable per Wikipedia:LSC#Selection_criteria. If they don't have articles on their own they can't stand up to LSC. Rail crashes aren't about living people, they aren't specifically named on the list of rail crashes.Carlosiru smith (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete- As above users said, like User:Bunser, the selection criterea itself requires sourcing in order to determine what entries get selected as part of the list. He provided the link LSC and as I read it, it confirms that the list should be deleted since it doesn't meet the requirements. It does not meet (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources. nor does it meet If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance? I also notice from the edit history of the list, that cases relating to european countries like Russia were deleted, while cases relating to non western countries were added. The case on russia was only recently added back, and the majority of the cases are still on third world countries, even though searches for penis removal will turn up a ton of cases in western countries- . Seeing as the main contributors to the list used google news, and somehow did not see these cases in westesrn countries, but when I used google news archive tons of these cases turned up, it must be concluded th at there was deliberate focus on non western countries in the list, possibly as a form of attack against them.Haydar Haydar (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * listen raghead, your opinion doesn't matter, the articles been here because I made it this big and you can't do anything about that.Nayyurc (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * looks like haydar haydar is also butthurt over this article- Arab strap (sexual device). You should stop using it if you're butthurt over the fact that you have no dickNayyurc (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Bunser and Haydar Haydar, you two imbicile clowns. Its not my fault that women from china and third world countries are mentally crazy or retarded. Stop rrying to delete my article.Karfks (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Keep the article, because Bunser is being an idiot. if chinese women like chopping dicks off due to THEM being a problem, then Bunser should take the problem of with THEM, not me, just because i'm documenting their nasty habits. all his rationales based on policy are just dumb blundering around for an excuse to delete the article. All of us who contributed to the list agree that it is important and should stay, not because this idiot bunser manages to find some policies which contradict the purpse of the list.Karfks (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RE Bunser and Haydar, i've worked on this article and made it come to this size. If you two are butthurt because it mentions women of your nationalities on the list you should get the fuck off the article. Also, get a dick before talking and trying to delete my article. Nayyurc (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Keep'- bunser is a stupid idiot and his accusations can have no basis in policy when the articles been here for this long. He is obviously butthurt. If it breaks policy then the rules should be bended since the article was here for long.Nayyurc (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (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.