Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrophilia

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 to delete, as is obviously the case if you have to relist a debate repeatedly David Gerard (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macrophilia

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

The information on this page seems like a better-than-average FAQ for a macrophilia website or forum. Even in the talk page, it's mentioned by proponents (who seem to have written the article) that there is little research on the subject to get any real information from. Discussion has been going on since 2005 about how to improve the page and it still doesn't demonstrate notability even while it seems to rely in part on original research. Pandarsson (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of paraphilias or Paraphilia NOS. Although the phenomenon is mentioned on some of the very large lists that try to provide all of the paraphilias (and maybe-paraphilias) ever mentioned anywhere, it is not itself the subject of any RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and keep – First of all, please note that I am an experienced Wikipedia editor of 5+ years and I am familiar with AFDs. I used to edit this article logged out due to privacy concerns of linking my personal life with my private fetish life. That being said, I revamped this article over a year ago and it looked something like this (and this is what it looked like before I got here). Every single statement was backed up by a proper source and it was entirely devoid of original research. I have since been very busy in real life, and my Wikipedia contributions/maintenance have been lacking. I have slowly been finishing some of my old sandbox projects and making time to continue my work here. One my upcoming plans was to revert this article back to where it was a year ago and continue expanding. There are many additional sources out there, but the trick is not to search for it under the name "macrophilia". For example, here is a 1200+ word article from the The Washington Post that refers to this as the "giantess fetish," which seems to be the more common terminology. 71.237.20.179 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do like your prior version better. I also very much appreciate the difficulty in finding sources that use other terms despite referring to the same topic. My personal preference is to use the technical term for the page name and to include the various slang and alternative terms in the page. My only concern with this particular page is that none of the sources are particularly reliable and that there is no attention from any traditional scholarly source. Although I have no problem including less formal sources to help describe the phenomenon, I am not sure they can establish the GNG without at least some mention in academic study.— James Cantor (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just found this scholarly article by Jeremy Biles. The credentials at the end of the article reads: "Jeremy Biles is a writer living in Chicago. He received his Ph.D. in Religion and Literature from the University of Chicago Divinity School. His fiction and scholarly work have appeared or are forthcoming in such places as the Journal of Religion, LVNG, Snow Monkey, and in catalogues for the Hyde Park Art Center, Chicago, where he recently curated the "Zounds" exhibition." The article also cites Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex by Katharine Gates and the works of Georges Bataille. Though it's largely about crush fetishism—a very closely related fetish—the article does mention macrophilia and giantess fetishism by name, and some of the content is about these topics without mentioning them by name. 71.237.20.179 (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequate coverage among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the above adds any RS's or indications of notability, so my opinion remains Delete or Redirect to Paraphilia NOS.— James Cantor (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There was and is enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. In addition, after a quick search, I added more sources from which to add material to the article.[1] There's plenty of more Wikipedia reliable source material out there. I don't see why this article was listed for deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Among the new sources, I see only one work that could be called scholarly (from the Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory) and that one only mentions macrophilia in passing. In fact, it relates the crushing fetish more to a "wound culture" than macrophilia. I still see no reason for this subject to have its own page. This seems to be true for quite a few paraphilias that have their own page. To be honest, I find this regrettable as it's another indication of how the behavioral sciences seem to shy from certain subjects, but it is what it is. If there's no research to provide reliable and meaningful information, there's little you can do beyond advocacy, which of course isn't within the scope of Wikipedia. — Pandarsson (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: One more relist to consider the sources just added by Uzma Gamal. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2012 (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.