Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbilling (2nd 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 keep. Pardon me while I go sanitize the mouse I used to push the "keep" button. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbilling

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no coverage in serious, reliable sources. Was speedied as vandalism, but having been previously kept at AFD, it was considered ineligible and overturned at DRV. Delete. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with ~~delete~~ too, though my reasoning is a bit different from Stifle's. What we have here is a dictionary definition of the alleged practice, combined with a denial that anyone ever does it; and that's all there is to say. In other words, there is insufficient reliably-sourced content to write a standalone article.
Essentially, what I'm saying is, Wikipedia is not Snopes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I remain of the opinion that Wikipedia does not need this content, I accept that the consensus is against me. I think it behoves me to withdraw my "delete" with good grace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not vandalism, but silly unsourced OR with no potential of becoming an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Weak keep per sources, decently-sourced urban legend. Otherwise, merge to Richard Gere (most common target of this legend). I removed the pop culture section because nobody else cared. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, gerbils and Gere do not mix. WebHamster got himself blocked for going there, and consensus is pretty clear that it is not going to happen. Fences&Windows 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:WebHamster got himself blocked because he was irredeemably uncivil, not because of his opinions on inserting the urban legend on the article. I support that opinion and I'm still here. Please avoid giving the impression that WP censors editors only for their opinions. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article: it covers a reasonably widespread urban legend. Delete the pop-culture section, though. --Carnildo (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' It identifies the subject as an urban legend. There are two reliable sources in the external links section. Are we going to delete everything in Category:Sexual urban legends? Answering Marshall: There's more than dictionary-definition stuff in the two web pages in the external links section, so the article can be expanded. I see no reason to call Snopes unreliable. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: The Case of the Missing Gerbil, Norine Dresser, Western Folklore, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 229-242 -- Samir 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on digging up those good sources Samir ! Wacko Jack O 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weakish keep I think the sources in the article aren't quite enough to justify keeping this, but a quick scan of the article provided by Samir pushes me over the line. There's journals for that? Hobit (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Makes no claims other than that this is hypothetical/urban legendary, room for expansion. Declan Clam (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid encyclopedic topic and search term. No reason why Wikipedia shouldn't cover this topic. -- œ ^™ 03:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article discusses a widespread urban legend although should be presented in more of an encyclopedic form (ie: remove and/or integrate pop-culture & trivia). A casual search via google suggests article could be expanded with more mainstream reliable sources. --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
disgusted keep- as long as its kept sourced, and it appears there are sources available, i can't let the fact that
i don't like it get in the way of the article existing. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep due to the sources. Although, the article could use a good cleaning up. The term is definitely notable, per the sources.Wacko Jack O 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proof that "Wikipedia is not censored". This on has it all, cruelty, bestiality and overall "gross" into one page. Notable enough as an urban legend, and enough keep votes that I don't have to hold my nose while typing. At least it's not a how-to ("You'll need some pumpkin seeds and a vacuum cleaner tube..."). Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. Actual and anecdotal cases of ... non-human items being lodged/inserted into people's rectums is rather entertaining and well-documented - by laughing nurses if no one else. Show scientifically how this particular practice is considered impossible and show the widespread pop culture usage of the idea.
-- Banjeboi 13:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep plenty of relevant hits on google news, books and even scholar UltraMagnus^speak 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um. It does appear to have been discussed in detail in multiple publications, thus meeting
WP:N, and have impact in our culture beyond a dictionary definition. This is perhaps even more disturbing a Keep !vote for me than the time I !voted to keep an article about a hole in the ground. Ray^Talk 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not going to argue that the term doesn't exist. But, there's only a couple sources that discuss it as part of urban legends in general. It's not a subject that has numerous reliable sources that cover it in detail; it's something that gets mentioned in passing. It's not enough to form a stand-alone article by any means. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this is not a particularly edifying topic, there do seem to be adequate sources available. For instance, Jan Harold Brunvand devoted an entire chapter to the subject in Too Good to Be True: The Colossal Book of Urban Legends (see Google Books link) Snopes.com is also a plausible source because they have a good reputation for fact-checking and reliability on the subject of urban legends. The Straight Dope has also discussed the issue (see Google Books snippet). And as someone pointed out above, there actually was a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject (though sadly I don't have access to JSTOR for the moment). These sources actually discuss the topic in some detail, not just mentioning it in passing. *** Crotalus *** 20:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Rectal foreign body - While there are clearly sufficient sources supporting this topic's independent notability, I think it might be better covered in the context of other things that have actually or allegedly been inserted into people's rectums.--Chris Johnson (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truly stupid, but notable on that account. Adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a notable urban legend. Moreover: can we have the cite to the journal article added to the article, please? -- Karada (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The Google Books results clearly show analysis of this topic as an urban legend. When I first saw this, I thought maybe there was some mistake; somebody must be nominating an article on something other than the urban legend. But no, I was wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 18:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all notability arguments above - I am happy to see common sense, even if with a funny twist, vindicated in this AfD. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable urban legend. Dream Focus 14:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.