Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vorarephilia


 * 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 keep.  Majorly  (o rly?) 14:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Vorarephilia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another paraphilia. Under a thousand Google hits, Google Scholar gives one passing mention (a single sentence in a single paper which alludes to it), Google News has nothing, Factive has nothing, the links at the bottom are not to reliable sources (only to forums and other cruft). So: a neologism, a fantasy fetish, and one which has little if any documentation in the relevant academic community. Sounds like sexcruft you say? You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all, Vore was not just a passing mention in one single sentence in that paper Guy found, in addition. There have been several books published by Willing Levy about this matter. Further more. "Vorarephile" is a much more popular word phase to search, which returns over ten thousands results on Google. It is evident that effort have not been made to properly verifies this entry before called for a deletion. EkaMei 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)




 * Delete unless article transforms during the course of this debate. Regards, Navou   banter  14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was going to nom this myself a few months ago but after searching around I found a reliable source for the subject and instead removed anything that could not reasonably qualify for inclusion under verifiability rules. The paraphilia obviously exists as is evident by its large online community and amateur artwork. Anyone interested can refer to the article's discussion page for a more in depth breakdown of the clean-up process (done mainly by myself). Bottom line is this is a real paraphilia that can, and is, verified through reliable sources and has enough material to warrant a stub. NeoFreak 19:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I feel quite foolish as I had just finished reviewing the macrophilia article when I came over here to this AfD. The ref I was referring to was in fact on that page. Although the rest rings true here for this article that doesn't mean the article escapes the criteria for deletion. While the paraphilia no doubt exists it is too fringe (or maybe just to young) to create reliable sources in order to provide the mandatory level of verifiability for any article on wikipeida. This means that until reliable sources can be found this article cannot support itself here. Of course many people are registering accounts here to "vote" on this AfD (no doubt after being recruited to do so at vore community sites) this AfD is not a vote and "I'm real and I'm into this stuff" is not a valid reason to retain this article. This article fails to meet policy requirements and should be deleted as failing WP:RS, WP:V and very possibly WP:NPOV since no objective coverage is available as all the knowledge of the subject is coming from people intimate with or involved in the subject material's "community". I ask the closing admin considers the policy question and the single purpose nature of the participants of this AfD as well as "community consensus".NeoFreak 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Making and or responding in wikipedia to threads like this where statements such as "I have created a profile to simply leave my two cents. I suggest others do so." by editors like diablodevil2 is against wikipedia policy as is clearly stated by the warning template above. You can be blocked for such behavior. NeoFreak 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons stated above. SAMAS 20:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It DOES exist. Believe me I know... MJN SEIFER
 * Delete unless RELIABLE sources are produced. --- RockMFR 22:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The community, while academically undocumented, certainly exists. I suspect that the more common term vore might end up giving significantly more Google hits (although the signal:noise ratio of that terms is rather low). -- Kirby1024 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Academically undocumented = unsourced, in this case. What do we use as reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 11:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been given all the rule books and it still makes no sense, what could be more a reliable than an actual voraphile talking to you right now? MJN SEIFER


 * Keep - I created a profile on the spot to join this discussion, so please forgive me if my etiquette is off. As Kirby1024 states, using the term "vore" will open up the community to the initiated. Whether it's art, writings, animations or movies, the evidence is plentiful. It's not hard to find. Google and Deviant Art will both do nicely in finding such things. Personally, the idea of deleting this article is offensive to me, being a voreaphile. In fact, it's the most offensive thing I've seen strike so close to home. Again, I apologize if my etiquette is off, but this quickly became a very personal issue to me. diablodevil2 — diablodevil2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep for reliable evident, please refer to the book "Vore - The Consuming Passion" published by Willian Levy at 2005. (There are more in related issue published by various other artists) Also, unlike the original debater of this issue. Type "Vore" in Google will list my site as the 3rd in the line, which, have a collection of about three hundreds artists and authors with album on the site that are dedicated to vore. If you think something does not exist, please at least spent some time and talk to those few hundreds contributors before making rush decision. Also, for statistic info, please feel free to contact me at my site if you need evident of regular visitors at count of thousands.  EkaMei 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC) — EkaMei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Reasons stated above - but I do have a personal comment to add for Seifer. In the first case, though it's quite obvious vore exists, Seif, it's much harder to prove whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia. Online stuff is tricky - for example, there are games on Newgrounds with upwards of eight million hits. That's way more members than Eka's Portal or any other vore message board out there has got - though I'd not judge on how many 'hits' the main pages have received. However, such games do not fall into the category for inclusion into Wikipedia - because, in the first case, they aren't that notable. True, eight million hits have been archived - but that just means someone's clicked on a button eight million times. There are message boards and letter-groups about it, you say? True, but I don't think there are eight million people on those message boards or letter groups. Wikipedia exists in order to help educate people about subjects - it is an online encyclopedia. True, there are a lot of things that aren't notable enough for a real encyclopedia here, but there has to be some cut-off. There hasn't ever been, to my knowledge, a scientific study conducted about vore. Yes, it exists - but where's the reliable information to put in an article? The worst source for an article is the person or people being talked about. That's why the Neo-Nazis don't get to put their version of the Holocaust into that article, that's why the politicians aren't allowed to edit their own articles - it's because information that comes from someone about that someone is inherently unreliable. We can't use the vore community itself for documentation ABOUT the vore community - because we'd be getting a biased, unscientific view. All that said, I still vote for 'keep'. Wikipedia is intended to educate people - and there's certainly enough information present to merit a stub article for vore. As long as the page doesn't cause an edit war about what should or shouldn't be in there, I really don't see a reason that it should stop existing - True, there's a rule on Wikipedia about 'no independent research', but surely there's a NPOV way to include this article. The fetish it alludes to isn't going to simply go away, after all. This kind of thing is certainly not a Wiktionary article, but it's certainly good enough for a 'pedia that uses three counts of "Pelican eats pidgeon" as references for another article. On a rather amusing note, I never expected my Wikipedia profile to be used to comment on something like this... --KaoruNagisaThe Angel 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — KaoruNagisa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Those who are pushing for the deletion of this article claim that the community which I find myself a member of, even if a non-contributing one, does not exist. This issue has actually propelled me to it's defense.  While I personally believe the request to delete this page is simply the product of someone unhappy with the existence of such a thing and is attempting to "cleanse" their world of what they view as an undesirable aspect, I have no proof of such and therefore cannot make the claim/accusation.  What I will say, is that all science and writing is based on some sort of observation.  We know what we do about the Pygmy tribes from watching them, and then writing about them.  Just because at first before they were well-known there were no books or articles on the Pygmies did not mean they did not exist.  I say keep this article, and let it be managed by those who know the subject best: voraphiles themselves.  As a matter of fact, I'm going to go digging for articles and information right now to add to the article and try to make it better fit the (voluntary, I must point out) standards which these people claim to be "enforcing". Phreakout 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — Phreakout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. This page claims the total results of the term "Vorarephilia" to be under 1,000. However, the term is sometimes spelled without the "re" in the middle. The word "Voraphilia" has over 1,000 results. (Note: I'm not sure how to sign this, I'm not a registered member. I have in the past made a few contributions to other articles that have had nothing to do with this, so don't label this as a Single Purpose Account).
 * I have seen the term voraphilia also being used to mean having a love for words. -- Jreferee 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's disgusting, the links section is fancrufty, and it's kinda questionable that people are signing up just to vote Keep here, but it's at least notable enough that I've seen it mentioned in the mainstream news before. In particular, reading this I remembered an article of the Straight Dope I read a few years ago. Krimpet 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Steve Eley, one of the writers of the manifesto of the Invisible Pink Unicorns, can edit the IPU article, and if anime fans can create and maintain (let’s be honest) fancruft articles about their respective anime of choice, then I submit that vorarephiles should be allowed to maintain this article. The problems claimed in this article, including original research, exist in other Wikipedia articles which have never been up for deletion. Besides, I’d love to hear the rationale for keeping so many, many articles devoted to anime, characters, concepts, and even objects and individual episodes—most of them are almost completely original research, derived from watching said anime. —Frungi 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. There are no credible references for the term, it's a neolgism.  We have deleted all sorts of articles on combinations of random latin words with -philia or -phobia attached, for exactly the same reasons.  Where are the academic references which establish this topic? I found one paper, which had one paragraph that mentioned it with no real detail. Leaving aside the puppet parade above, where are the multiple non-trivial reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there another term for the concept? The fetish does exist, as has been established here, and this seems to be the best word to describe it. If the problem is that it’s a neologism, just redirect the article to a suitable pre-existing term. The fact is, the term exists on the Internet, and if someone comes across it, he’ll want to look it up. And again, where are the academic references for all the anime fancruft? Why shouldn’t the same rationale used for them be used here? —Frungi 13:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. You will have to forgive me if I am editing this page improperly.  My input into Wikipedia thus far has been limited to the comments sections.  As such, I may be seen as a "single purpose poster", merely because I usually prefer to watch than comment.  I also do not yet know the proper coding to "tab" the other paragraphs below to line up properly, my apologies. That said, thus far I believe the "standards" at Wikipedia are not being held as rigorously as some may claim.  This article, not it's existence, but rather the threat of removal, is proof of that.  For a web site that can dedicate massive articles are such topics as "Lightsaber Combat", giving extremely in-depth accounts of something that appears in a series of movies, created for no reason other than "it looks good", but at the same time will go out of their way to whittle down articles such as this astounds me.  Look at the History of this particular article, and you can see how it went from discussion of a relatively new "field" in fetishes to being stripped of nearly all content, and only then, cited for deletion.  It is if somebody wants this subject to simply go away.  And given the number of other, highly questionable articles on Wikipedia, especially those that have no relevance to anything except the small fictional worlds in which they exist, it is obvious that Wikipedia truly is nothing more than a massive popularity contest. Does this fetish exist?  Without a doubt.  It is quite obvious to anyone who spends more than 30 seconds punching a word they don't even know how to spell into Google that there is indeed information of this fetish out there.  It has been defined, various sub-branches have been identified and defined, there even is discussion on the psychological reasons for it (Fight or Flight reactions, dominance/submissiveness, etc.)  The fact that it hasn't moved into the "main stream" yet is largely in part because the "main stream" is always a few decades behind, at least.  And it is a case of "I don't want to see it, therefore it doesn't exist." Does this article deserve deletion?  In it's current state, probably.  However, it would be far more appropriate for this article to be edited, to be put back into a state of completion, discussion and information about the subject and about the branches within the subject, by those who know what the subject is, and what they are talking about.  The "experts" in this field currently are those involved in the community.  Another thing that needs to happen is for people who DON'T know what the subject matter is to leave it largely alone, unless they are willing to spend the time to truly look it up for themselves first. 75.167.30.149 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Reasoning: I searched for Wikipedia qualifying published works about (i) vorarephilia, (ii) phagophillia, (iii) vore (fetish), and (iv) vore (paraphilia), but could not find any.  While the external links listed in the article might have some use in the article, the text of the article makes no reference use of these links.  Since there is not enough Wikipedia qualified source material that would permit editors to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, the topic does not meet Notability requirements.  Thus, although this appears to be an important subject, I believe that the article should be deleted per Wikipedia notability requirements.  Comment - If this article survives the present Article for Deletion (AfD), then the comments, promises, mentions of source material, etc. made in this AfD should be used to further evaluate the article in the event the article is proposed for a second AfD. -- Jreferee 18:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Evidence of it is easy to find and at least warrents a stub. A search for vorarephilia comes up with about 981 results, but a search for vore(which it is often called) comes up with about 15,100,000 results(though many of these may not actually pertain to vorarephilia I though it worth mentioning). I do agree that this article needs heavy editing. To clarify, I am not a part of the vore community but have seen more than enough evidence of it.-- LinaCrow 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just happened across this article by accident while following wiki-links, so gave the discussion a read. Voraraphilia, or voraphilia as it is sometimes termed has an extremely active community of the internet. Wikipedia is full of articles about things like internet communites and pop-culture memes that have little to no acedemic coverage and hard sourcing. This topic is no different. Just because there is not a lot of academic sources of information about this topic, it does not mean that it doesn't exist or that a sizable and active community does not exist.  If we're willing to write about and not bat an eye at keeping "All your base are belong to us," or the "Star Wars Kid" or all the stuff related to the #chans which are all sources of internet memes and lack a lot of "academic" coverage, why not this, which is at least as significant to a large number of people and generates a great deal of art and writing that is easily accessable and found?  The article needs to be rewritten, yes, but to delete it would be an unfair application of wikipedia's policy given all the other stuff on Wikpedia that no-one bats an eye at and is similair in scope. --Lendorien 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll start off by admitting that I am a vorarephile myself. I have been for over 30 years, when I first found myself becoming aroused at scenes in stories or movies, where someone was being eaten alive.  The term itself, is what I have known this fetish by for the past 10 years, when I first came online and found others like myself.  I have found no other psychiatric term that could define this fetish for me.  Just because I am not aroused by other fetishes, does not mean that this one does not exist.  The reason there is a lack of scientific research on vorarephilia, is because of one: the apparant small percentage of the population who has it; and two: for all intent and purposes, it is a harmless fetish that has no real-world interaction.  Researchers have no desire to spend time and money on a condition that threatens nobody.  Though it is often classified as a fantasy fetish, because people don't go around swallowing others or getting swallowed themselves, that has nothing to do with the physical reaction of an arousal that occurs.  Yes, the entry should make it clear that this fetish has not been scrutinized by psychiatrists yet, and the term itself should be considered as 'slang' because of this fact; but to ignore something that has existed as the common terminolgy for over a decade is putting blinders on.  Instead of asking where the scientific evidence is, ask instead where the facts of this article can be proven as wrong, before deleting it. -- A university lecture document that discusses similar fetishes, making only a reference to 'vorarephilia' in its online resources listing, can be found here: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/428/428lect13.htm Amberax 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. You are, mostly, correct in your understanding of the term vorarephilia and it's controversy here. This is called a neologism. Wikipedia has rules and guildlines for dealing with neologisms. The guidline in a nutshell as covered at the top of the page and states: New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term. If you follow the rabbit hole a little deeper you will also find the definition of what wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. I would recommend you read the entire guildline which can be found in the links I've provided to get a better understanding of why this articel fails to meet the standards of a wikipedia article. NeoFreak 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up. Given the definition of neologism (I particularly like: 'A meaningless word used by a psychotic.') and Wikipedia's guidelines towards their usage, I must unfortunately recant my previous keep request and agree with the delete option.  While I personally believe that a decade of usage should be more than long enough to raise a term from being considered as 'new' to accepted, I could find no definitive rule to follow as to when a word would no longer be considered a neologism (despite a websearch of various online dictionaries).  Therefore, it is up to the individual to make that decision and Wikipedia has the right to decide that for themselves.  I am always quick to use Wikipedia as my initial reference source for information, often forgetting the encyclopedic nature of these services.  For now, terms such as vorarephilia would probably be best left for dictionaries, despite my wishes for it to appear as an entry here.  My only question would be on the validity of having entries for all of the other 'fetishes' listed at the bottom of the entry on Vorarephilia, where most of those have no scientific validation either. Amberax 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The Straight Dope (which I believe is a valid published source) appears to have acknowledged it as a term in a 2002 column. Google gives almost 15,000 hits for vorarephile, although fewer for vorarephilia itself. The more commonly used shortened form "vore" appears to have even more, though it is hard to distinguish from the Swedish name. It passed requests for verification on Wiktionary, though there wasn't much discussion. I also find the last part of the nomination rather patronizing. AfD is not intended as a tool for individual editors to exclude things that they personally feel are beneath Wikipedia. GreenReaper 18:56, 3 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.