Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pup-play

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Human animal roleplay per Voyager640 (talk · contribs) and Aleta (talk · contribs). It looks like there's a general consensus that there aren't a lot of reliable sources for this subject yet, so we should only keep that portion of the content that's reliably sourced. If this subject later attracts more study, and more reliable sources become available, then this could be a standalone article again. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pup-play

[edit]
Pup-play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I do not deny that some may find it an interesting activity to role play as a puppy in bondage games, but the references in the article do not appear to qualify as reliable and independent sources to show that the subject is notable. I placed a PROD on the article which was removed, so I add it to AFD for the community to have an opportunity to evaluate it. Edison (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human animal roleplay, per Aleta's suggestion. Seems like a good solution here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article may be somewhat subjective but the sources are there--the sort of sources there are for subjects like this and therefore reliable enough for the purpose. AfD isnt supposed to be for forcing the improvement of articles. DGG (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(as nominator) The websites do not appear to satisfy WP:RS, but I would welcome others' evaluation of them. As for the books, the one by Scribner "Of wolves and men" and the one from Owl Books "The great American Wolf" appear to be about real (not pretend) wolves. That leaves two books, by Micheal Daniels, which seem to be about about "pup play." "Woof! Perspectives into the Erotic Care & Training of the Human Dog" which per Google Book Search is held by 4 libraries, including only 1 public or college library, and "Grrr! (A collection of dog and puppy fiction.)" which did not show up in any library collection per Google Book Search Are they "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" or limited circulation fan publications? They are, according to Amazon, from "Nazca Plains Corporation." Edison (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks anything in the way of reliable sources fit for print in an encyclopedia. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have been doing some literature searches into BDSM-related topics and have been finding very few things published in scientific journals on the topic. I'm consulting with the Community-Academic Consortium for Research on Alternative Sexualities, and would like some time to revise this article up to encyclopedic standards. I am also going to consult with some of the pup organizations that i know of. Keep in mind that when an article is written about a subculture that has primarily proliferated in the Internet era, many sources will be written by members of that culture-- the sources cited in the article look like the very sites that my friends who are pups have learned from and rely on for their information about the pup-world. Voyager640 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an example of a BDSM practice or interest which DOES have reliable sources, Google Scholar shows 142 results for "shoe fetish" but only 16 "pup play," all of which are about real-life canines and not human role-playing. So there are notable and non-notable sexual interests, and this seems to be the latter. Edison (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate your efforts, you haven't actually provided a valid reason to keep this article. It goes without saying that you're encouraged to create a proper article in your userspace, but we don't keep bad articles around in mainspace for these reasons. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the article is a work-in-progress-- stubs, for example, are often kept in the mainspace while editors work to develop them, often over the course of years. I've listed this article in several places to request help in improving it. I have read a lot about the leather/BDSM community and been to numerous events over the years-- the pup thing seems to have a certain significance, role, and place within that community that seems worthy of documenting in an encyclopedia. Voyager640 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also added it to two WikiProjects and added it onto their todo lists and requested assistance on improving the article. Voyager640 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I added a "This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications" to alert other editors about the problems that need to be corrected. Voyager640 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Voyager640 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No opinion on whether to keep the article, but I noted that for practical purposes the article was just been created within the past 3 days, and as such it seems inappropriate to be nominating it for AfD. It should instead be reviewed as a possible candidate for speedydelete, and if it survives that process, given more time to be developed properly before consideration for AfD. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What makes you say that three days is too soon for an AfD? Loads of articles are in need of deletion as soon as they're made, but not uncontroversial enough for PROD. As for speedy, I don't see that it meets any of the criteria. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge information for which reliable sources are available into Human animal roleplay. Aleta Sing 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objections to the above-proposed Merge. Voyager640 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Human animal roleplay per Aleta. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the factual core of the article and delete the rest. I'm afraid this goes a bit further than poorly sourced statements. There's some highly contentious claims about dog society, werewolves etc. etc. etc., all without sources. There's a hefty block quote from an unknown source giving us a piece of Native American lore (or is this fiction? who can tell?). Sexuality articles shouldn't be judged by harsher standards than the rest of the Wikipedia, but there's a lot of stuff here that wouldn't be acceptable in any context. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Altho the references should be cleaned up and the over all article tightened, this is a small sub-group, distinct from other human animal role-play. They even have their own flag! it is a definite minority interest, but has deep cultural roots in lycanthropy and psychological dimensions of potential interest to the therapeutic community as well. "Woof" and "Grrr!" are available in bookstores and will, assuredly be available in libraries one day—especially libraries with GLBTQ special collections. the critical review amazon listed the book as being derivative of a web-site. a web search reveals the site in question, leatherdog.com on longer exists. just because a terribly small number of interested parties label themselves practitioners does not negate the subject as notable. the same could have applied to the entire GLBTQ just 50 years ago!--Hewhorunswithwolves (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is the "terribly small number of interested parties" and the lack of coverage which tends to make this practice/interest/subculture not meet the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and notability. The two books may be in specialty bookstores, but do not appear to have sales numbers all that large, and the lack of their appearance in libraries is troubling with respect to their establishing this as a notable sex practice, lifestyle, whatever. Merger to Human animal roleplay as suggested might be appropriate at this time. We reject crystall ball claims that something is "bound to become notable" in the future. If it does, an article can be created then. Edison (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is it ok to merge to article into human animal roleplay prior to the conclusion of the VFD? Voyager640 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to wait for the closure of the AfD; we should see what the consensus is before acting. Aleta Sing 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I wanted to make sure to be following WP:BOLD. Voyager640 (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is generally an underground kinky sexual activity that I would be surprised to find volumes filling up the New York Times best-seller list, however, there is some books about BDSM that delve into the subject and there certainly are websites that are not purely marketing/sales focused that also give the subject serious coverage. Puppy-play, like many BDSM activities, is getting more mainstream attention and some examples showing this evoltion might also benefit our readers. The article as is needs some clean-up and the encyclopedic treatment of the activity and those who find pleasure in it could make a great article. Here are a few books and here are a few articles that could help towards this. Banjeboi 03:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Rather than cite a Google Scholar search which includes many items utterly unrelated to the subject of this article, please select a few which you feel are reliable surces which establish the notability of this subject. The question is not at all whether BDSM has gained coverage in the press; it is whether "pup play" has. Edison (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually the majority of the less than two-dozen seem to support this article with the handful of those "utterly unrelated" pretty obviously so. Presently, I am unavailable to rewrite the article but felt showing that many reliable sources are available so the subject can be dealt with in an encyclopedic manner would help others make a more informed decision. Above you note that two books "in specialty bookstores" with low sales and not in libraries "is troubling with respect to their establishing this as a notable sex practice, lifestyle" so I have tried to illuminate that this emerging sex-play has more than just those books and has other sources, many online. If one were to access some of the sexuality- and kink-focussed research centers (like the Leather Archives and Museum, Center For Sex & Culture and the Museum of Sex) other material would become plainly evident (like author Patrick Califia who has written quite a bit about puppy play. Banjeboi 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment do you know what has patrick clalifia written about pupplay and where it can be accessed? im searching for all sources specific to the subject and will ad them, either to the text of the page, or to the references section. thanks!

--Hewhorunswithwolves (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge There doesn't seem to be enough original, quality content for this article to stand on its own, but it certainly has topics that should appear in an article on human/animal roleplay. Most of the current article is poorly written, and I agree that there is a paucity of reliable sources on the topic. You could probably interpret my "merge" vote as "delete the current article, but cover the topics in the human/animal roleplay article." --davidstrauss (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pup-play&oldid=1089821036"