- 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 redirect to Conjoined twins. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conjoinment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested PROD, "Non-notable neologism; article is orphaned; previously taged with non-notability." Additionally the articles has no sources and an attempt to find any came up with nothing. BJTalk 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Conjoined twins. There are several issues here. First "conjoinment" is not (only) a fictitious process, as the article states, it also refers to humans or animials that are joined from birth. See Conjoined twins. Secondly, a Gnews search turns up some sources for the term "conjoinment". It appears that most of these refer to conjoined twins, not a fictitious process. Given that, the use of the term "conjoinment" to refer to a fictitious process appears to be a non-notable, and thus inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I might also be open to a section called "Fictitious conjoinment" within the Conjoined twins article. LinguistAtLarge 17:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Wikipedia should not delete this article because it's a distinct subject and serves to help real people find communities and support. Articles such as this are an important lifeline to people who could be experiencing unbearable stress over what they feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.49 (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A process that the article explicitly tells us to be "fictitious" requires a support group for real people? I think not. You'll find that closing administrators won't take such an argument seriously. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Conjoined twins. I didn't find much on conjoinment as described in the article, and the uses of conjoinment that were significant were related to conjoined twins. -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see why the admins are so motivated to remove the article. It covers a subject important to thousands of people around the world. As is stated at the top of the page, wikipedia is paid for by the users, is created by the users, is maintained by the users, and should have the content that the users want. Wikipedia is a public commons. If this is about any specific wording in the article or any other failing, then I have and will continue to make edits to bring it up to acceptable standards. There are few links in the article because people who would add such links are probably associated with the groups the links would be to and therefore refrain for fear of violating the spam policy. It must also be pointed out that the removal of articles such as this from sites such as this (not that there are many!), creates a negative feedback loop where a topic, no matter how important, is simply not covered anywhere because it is not covered anywhere. I don't claim that this topic is special in its importance, not at all. only that it deserves a few hard disk sectors along side all the useful anime trivia. I'm not making any claims either for or against anime trivia, nor am I equating this with anime trivia (though it contains some), only that I'm concerned that the subject is being targeted for removal without good cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.49 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone has an agenda to remove the article. However, Wikipedia has standards as to what content is allowed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of material, rather it is an encyclopedia and the criteria for inclusion is verifiable notability. In other words, the subject must be notable per Wikipedia policy and that notability must be verifiable via reliable sources. LinguistAtLarge 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong on so many points. So here are just two: Wikipedia is a public commons. — No, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It must also be pointed out that the removal of articles such as this from sites such as this (not that there are many!), creates a negative feedback loop where a topic, no matter how important, is simply not covered anywhere because it is not covered anywhere. — Hard cheese. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. If something has not escaped its creators/inventors and entered the general corpus of human knowledge, and hasn't been documented in published works by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, then it isn't appropriate content. See our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. If someone wants the heretofore undocumented documented, xe should use the proper avenues for documenting new knowledge. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It's not an academic journal. It's not a newspaper. It's not a WWW hosting service. It's an encyclopaedia. Please read Wikipedia:About and learn about Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is that because conjoinment has not been studied scientifically it can't be described at all? A reference I posted to a list of links to conjoinment sites was removed from the article, the reason for this removal was not stated. I can only conclude from this that primary sources are not acceptable reference material for Wikipedia... My statement above about the circularity of non-inclusion definitely holds in this case too. Since you won't allow it on Wikipedia for not having papers written about it, scientists won't learn about it and write papers about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.49 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says? They don't come here for that. Telling scientists what new fields of the unknown to research is not the remit of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a university. It is not a research grants committee. It is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I don't get the sense that this fetish has anything substantive to do with conjoined twins and would not redirect there. The article's problem is failure to convey any notability. The connection to Vorarephilia seems more apt-- i.e., a kind of fetish or fantasy involving massive bodily transformations. Without some kind of media coverage, though, it's not gonna stand up to the notability test. So as it stands, it's original research. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per original nom, what should have been an uncontroversial delete but oh well; at most, redirect to conjoined twins Zero sharp (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let it stay This fetish is real and I am one person who has it, and yes it can really influence your life because it is something you have to deal with just like being homosexual or heterosexual. And this fetish does not have anything to do with Vorarephilia. While some people may have both fetishes, a conjoinment fetish means you get mentally/physically aroused by the idea of conjoining with another human being, or witnessing a conjoined human being. And Vorarephilia is not anything close to that. Also, while right now it is impossible/near impossible to realize a real life conjoinment due to technological barriers, in future decades this may not be the case and you may see people become conjoined with one another. While millions of people do not have this fetish, enough do to warrant the article to remain up for the people who do have this fetish(which remains in the thousands at least), and for people who are curious to find out what this fetish is. Also there are many sites that have to do with this fetish that have not been linked to the article, for reasons I do not know. These websites could be used as a source to find out more about this fetish that is very real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madden2themax5 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 January 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.