Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoo Code

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 delete. JForget 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Code

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

The prod has been contested, so I'm nominating it. Non-notable code, only sources are one personal website. No apparent repercusion out of that website (note that it's an adaption of the Geek Code, which is actually notable). Enric Naval (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject_Furry of this discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator. No reliable sources to be found. Reyk _YO! 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'd merge to a list of geek-code derivatives if there were a reliable source. GreenReaper (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I own one of the web sites currently used as a reference, and I'm quite certain that no secondary sources exist. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an archived version from archive.org, in case that helps. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr comment posted by blocked Histin' Fitler (talk · contribs)

KEEP Bestiality isn't usually consensual, but zoophilia always is. Furries and therianthropes are just zoosexuals who can't get an untouched animal to have sex with and/or a full-blown relationship. Both zoosexual, they have fantasies, and then start producing art to continue their sexuality on the new dimension. 'A human is an animal'. So many people grow up thinking animals are disney caricatures, so they try to enhance the magic of their fantasy by protecting them like their kids (even if adult), hence most associate them as kids, and therefore hate zoosex wrongly like it's semi-pedophilic (because they think all non-humans animals are children, with learning pedophilia is wrong from childhood and the media by many aspects (which it is)). Most animals mature younger, hence people think they are still kids, even when they're fully mature. The anti-pedophilia principle is highly used to imply and express anti-bestiality attitude. Which is clearly wrong, if the animal(s) in question is adult. Otherwise, it'd be equally wrong for a wild human/animal to have sex with another wild human/animal. The idea of humans being highly superior is incorrect, for many deny the obvious consideration that sex is not harmful, anyway. We all have different theories and doctrines, despite fatalism being clear in science, humans tend to refuse and by complex confusion, they utter their supremacy by thinking they can actually decide beyond what they already know. And humans aren't that superior. Despite humans have a large neocortex, all Mammals have one (so can consent just as much as a human by distinction), they only use a small percent of it. Most of a human's knowledge is stored in literature by the extension system over literacy. Without the ability to read, write, and colloborate idea, humans would be as 'primitive' as all other animal species. The human's only true advantage is randomness, however, many other species have more than one advantage, making them more supreme. For example, while we may be high in intellect (cognitive capabilities (periphreal capabilities of literacy allow us to craft, feedback, and absorb literature), etc), however dogs are high in their sense of smell. How can any human or non-human animal consent to anything? We're all under the influence of hormones. Hormones are just like any other effective chemical. Why, are you saying that something without hormones would be able to actually do things the hormones do, without those hormones? Those 'chemicals' and the 'nerves' they work with, are triggers for both wanting and doing activities, from sex to simple thinking. Why is 'sex' so underrated when it comes to zoosex, I mean 'sex' is pleasure. Both rape and harm are seperate offenses. Whether sex be involved or not, when the feeling of pain is mutual by the understand that you wouldn't like it yourself, you wouldn't do it to others, it should be condemned to prevent pain, given by those whom don't have the 'mutual' feeling of it. But 'intolerance' to prevent the 'pleasure' of sex? Surely it's sane to accept sex, but not the 'seperate' conduct of coercion and torture. Both zoosadism and force lies more commonly outside sex, while even then it's seperate from the actual activity, why not condemn the meat industry, and animal testing, then? Besides, a zoophile does not do this. Bestialists whom do it are zoosadists and bestialists, they're not one collective type of person. Sex, force and pain are all different things. So you're not accepting 'pleasure'? Even when the feeling's mutual when it comes to wanting pleasure, so you'd enjoy giving it to someone else. That means you'd want to promote it, or at least 'condone it', rather than 'condemn it'! The only time we hate 'sex' is when there's the caution of 'unwanted babies', are you actually considering interspecies procreation can take place? Thus, sex as pleasure, but not a violation, is not bad. There's also the obvious distinction between bestialists and zoophiles. Genuine zoophiles love and would never force nor harm their mate. Bestialists don't truly love their animal, and hence may provide force, whoredom, slaving, harm, exploitation via pornography, etc. I name websites BeastForum.com, ZetaForum.org, ZoophilesForum.com, etc bad. The reason why is having a whorish attitude towards everything, exploiting animals - etc, and also absorbing others into their 'bestialist' way of life, by stealing the name 'zoophilia'. Whoever hates zoosexuality is an anti-zoo. Whoever hates zoophilic zoosexuality is a zoophobe! Histin' Fitler (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- User was blocked (for rather obvious reasons); also, this gargantuan wall of text was just copied and pasted from elsewhere on the 'net. Fran Rogers ❇ 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, lack of sources, lack of notability. Chzz ► 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Chzz ► 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic entry with no documented notability from reliable sources. -RobertMel (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above though I'm open to Heyman save. Also a Comment that I removed the {{rescue}} tag that Delicious carbuncle added as part of its usage is to explain on this AfD why the article should or how it could be kept. Instead they have been adding this article as a see also link on numerous articles. And now they have re-added the rescue tag. Sorry, I'm just not seeing any reliable sourcing for this. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comparing this to the related Geek Code will show that Geek Code also suffers from weak sourcing because these are internet terms and their main use is by subcultures. I am confident sources can be found to bring it this article up to the same level as the more well-known Geek Code or Bear Code. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even within the small, obscure subculture in which this code was briefly used, it was obscure. The Geek Code was popular among a subculture multiple orders of magnitude larger than this one, and it's still marginally sourced. I am quite serious when I say (above) that the necessary sources do not exist. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the geek code has a very good coverage in computing books and sociological books[1]. In contrast, Zoo code seems to have exactly zero coverage in dead tree sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask Delicious carbuncle if he tagged this article for Rescue to prove a point? Seems to be trying to mock us. Dream Focus 10:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you assume that by tagging the article for rescue I am trying to mock you? Although the subject matter relates to a particular subculture, it is no less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I assume from your comments here that you find the idea of zoophilia distasteful, but not everyone shares your views. This article was created by User:FT2 who has been an admin, oversighter, checkuser, and member of the arbitration committee. One of the sites used as an external link belongs to User:Zetawoof who has been editing here since 2004. I believe that this type of article is the spirit behind WP:NOTCENSORED. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless, obscure trivia that amounts to garbage. --MohammadMosaddeq (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no relevant news results. Whenever this term is used, its for something else. I think this entire page is a hoax. Read the first part of it.

"The Zoo Code is an Internet self-classification code based upon the Geek Code and adapted and used within the online zoophile subculture from around 1996, intended as a shorthand "signature" to describe themselves, their philosophies, and their stances on certain common issues such as animal welfare and vegetarianism."

They are combining zoophile, which is someone who wants to have sex with animals, with animal welfare. Can you care about the welfare of an animal if you want to rape it? I don't think there are any animals out there that want a human to have sex with them. And would everyone who wants to have sex with animals, also be a vegetarian? Dream Focus 10:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's not derail this into a discussion about values held by zoophiles. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pretty much everyone. (Re to Dream Focus; presumably the animals don't mind it all that much. Dogs have painful ways to let you know they're not happy with you, particularly if you're waving your exposed genitalia in their direction.) – iridescent 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources and nothing to indicate notability. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (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.