Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro stimulation
Electro stimulation was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP but with a recommendation to convert this to a disambiguation page. Rossami 22:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article was listed on Category:Pages_on_votes_for_deletion by another user, but not here. I am adding the entry here as a public service. Ground for deletion: not encylopedic? Stating the bleeding obvious (Warning: Under no circumstances, mains voltage (line voltage) should be used.) Sounds like an interesting way of going about Phreaking. Ianb 21:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- no vote; I'm just completing a vfd process here and have no experience with this particular leisure activity, although I did get an electric shock from a telephone socket once (though not to the genitals) --Ianb 03:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- There are other BDSM practices with their own articles , such as flagellation, medical fetishism, erotic spanking, and (ahem) figging :-(. I don't know why in God's name that they're in the Wikipedia, but so they are, and they're fairly complete. Electro stimulation would be in good company if it were turned into more than a useless substub. Keep? --Ardonik 02:44, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
- I would say its non-encyclopedic if it weren't for the tons of other crap we have articles on. Still, rewrite or delete. -R. fiend 05:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I would say so too. In fact I will. Delete, unworthy of a separate article - this topic needs, at most, a brief mention in BDSM or some other bizzare-sexual-act-related article. Rdsmith4 | Talk 05:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm on record as opposing all those tiny fetish activities getting primacy of namespace on their specialist articles. When I was a kid, I used to lick 9v batteries. Now I know why, although I thought it was just because I didn't have any chile peppers. Geogre 13:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but cleanup/re-write/expand. With reservations.Mergeand redirecttowith Erotic electrostimulation. Ok, now that FZ has pointed out a third possible use of the meaning of Electro stimulation (Skeletomuscular electrostimulation), I think the most logical course of action is to make Electro stimulation into a disambig page. My thoughts on the validity of including the erotic/fetish subject of "electro stimulation" in Wikipedia: Looking at it from an anthropological point of view, this is a real practice of a BDSM/fetish subgoup, and there's an small industry built around selling sex toys that supply electrical shocks to the genitals. That in itself makes it notable. (And no, just in case anyone is wondering, I am not a participant in BDSM, nor do I engage in the practice that is being discussed here.). This subject may possibly be appropriate as a subsection of BDSM, in which case I will advocate a merge & redirect, but I adamantly oppose deletion on the grounds that in a NPOV publication like Wikipedia, the practices of significant human subgroups (including fetishists) belong. Why? Because they are legitimately part of the full spectrum of human behaviour, good, bad or kinky, regardless of whether or not some of the editors like or dislike them. (I admit I can't help but wonder... is the objection to this article because it is a kind of human behaviour that makes some people uncomfortable to know it goes on? Or, perhaps, are some people objecting because they disapprove of the behaviour?) Kevyn 11:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)- WTF? Keep. Not liking or understanding it is not a reason to delete the article - David Gerard 12:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, David, has anyone in this debate expressed even a vague disliking of the practice or a mystification of what it is? You and Kevyn both make that allegation, but I only see people objecting to solitary break outs of articles that concern, at most, a few thousand people. From a marketing point of view, it's worth your money to make fetish gear. From an encyclopedic point of view, it's not nice to have each permutation of the human imagination grab a break away article. If it can't be discussed in BDSM or fetish, then it doesn't get discussed, IMO, because this name trips over non-fetish ones and because it's too minor. What would we do if a book sold as few copies as there are self-shocking BDSM folks? Would we include it? Geogre 13:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That would be a reason not to bother writing the article - rather than a reason to delete an existing article - David Gerard 17:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- And yet, David, it seems that someone went ahead and wrote the article anyway, and now it's on VfD. Perhaps that's because it shouldn't have been written as a stand-alone entity. So far, everyone has been saying, essentially, "Discuss this in its logical place." No one has been saying, "Don't tell the world the shocking truth of shocking." Because a little foresight wasn't exercised, we now have a VfD debate. So you can draw your own conclusion about my devious designs, but I think I'm in favor of authors carefully considering where their interests go before they begin detailing them. Geogre 14:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, Geogre, I do think that some editors have expressed a "vague disliking" of certain BDSM practices in this debate. Lucky 6.9 started his delete vote with "Eww," R.fiend described other, comparable articles as being "crap," and Rdsmith used the phrase "bizzare-sexual-act-related article" ... all of these are negatively loaded POV. Editors are, of course, entitled to their personal opinions about such practices, and I confess to having some negative opinions about BDSM of my own. But when it comes to deciding if an article deserves inclusion, I think it's important that we, as editors, remain dispassionately NPOV, despite our own personal likes or dislikes. As for your assertation that the name "Electro stimulation" trips over non-fetish uses, I think you may have a valid point. For instance, Cranial electrotherapy stimulation may be accurately covered by Electro stimulation. There may be others uses, as well. Electro stimulation may indeed be more suited as a disambig page than as a redirect page to Erotic electrostimulation
, which is what I am voting for now. Kevyn 11:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)- Well, Kevyn, I thought they were just being flip and trying to entertain others doing the voting. At any rate, I certainly haven't been against the information, and I don't think most have been, either. I think it has been about a solitary article on a topic that doesn't rise to the level of interest or uniqueness to require it. That's my view, anyway. I think we need to think of books, albums, songs, movies, etc. as whether they will be searched, whether there is enough to say about them to exceed stub status, and whether those who search for them will not know to find them by their allied topics. The reasons are both clutter and namespace concerns. Apparently, my feelings mark out some dastardly, new, and dangerous clique of fuddy duddies. (shrug) Geogre 14:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Geogre, I never singled you out as being against the subject, but I do sense that it makes other editors uncomfortable, based on their comments (my perception, of course). I confess to being especially sensitive to the "whitewashing" of sexual minorities, as well as being especially attuned to the danger of we, as editors, losing our objectivity as dispassionate chroniclers of the universe (which is, essentially, what I believe the function of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is) when it comes to "uncomfortable" subjects. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not this particular topic will "rise to the level of interest or uniqueness" to be included -- the existence of the lengthier article on the same subject, Erotic electrostimulation, which Ianb alerted us to (thank you Ianb) suggests to me that, while it is indeed of "niche interest," it's still matters enough to several individuals who have taken the time to research and write about the topic -- and that itself inclines me to keep the subject. Your concerns about namespace clutter are well taken, and that is why I have changed my vote to merging the content of Electro stimulation into Erotic electrostimulation, and then re-wroking Electro stimulation into a disambig page, especially given that now there are at least three topics (and possibly more) that could fall under that heading. (I also happen to agree with you on the way we treat books, albums, songs, movies, etc., but I don't feel that discussion is relevant to this one). Kevyn 11:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I concur, there should be some kind of overarching article or disambiguation page- there's also skeletomuscular electrostimulation (whihc I'm going to get around to writing someday if someone else doesn't), used for treating injuries and neuomuscular disorders. -FZ 17:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, Kevyn, I thought they were just being flip and trying to entertain others doing the voting. At any rate, I certainly haven't been against the information, and I don't think most have been, either. I think it has been about a solitary article on a topic that doesn't rise to the level of interest or uniqueness to require it. That's my view, anyway. I think we need to think of books, albums, songs, movies, etc. as whether they will be searched, whether there is enough to say about them to exceed stub status, and whether those who search for them will not know to find them by their allied topics. The reasons are both clutter and namespace concerns. Apparently, my feelings mark out some dastardly, new, and dangerous clique of fuddy duddies. (shrug) Geogre 14:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That would be a reason not to bother writing the article - rather than a reason to delete an existing article - David Gerard 17:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, David, has anyone in this debate expressed even a vague disliking of the practice or a mystification of what it is? You and Kevyn both make that allegation, but I only see people objecting to solitary break outs of articles that concern, at most, a few thousand people. From a marketing point of view, it's worth your money to make fetish gear. From an encyclopedic point of view, it's not nice to have each permutation of the human imagination grab a break away article. If it can't be discussed in BDSM or fetish, then it doesn't get discussed, IMO, because this name trips over non-fetish ones and because it's too minor. What would we do if a book sold as few copies as there are self-shocking BDSM folks? Would we include it? Geogre 13:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- comment: there is a lengthier article on the same subject at: Erotic electrostimulation--Ianb 12:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ok that scares me, but redirect and merge with Erotic electrostimulation The Steve 19:25, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and disambiguate. Guanaco 05:49, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and disambiguate. I originally voted for deletion of this article. The information it contains is of no merit (see my erotic electrostimulation article). There needs to be a disambiguation page for the different types of electrostimulation (cranial, erotic, etc).
PS. I'd appreciate it if you kept your negative POVs out of this, thank you - just because you choose not to do something doesn't mean it's not worthy of contribution to Wikipedia. To pick a topic as an example, there are more Formula One drivers listed in Wikipedia than there are BDSM topics, and I don't know *anyone* who is into Formula One racing...... Dlloyd 11:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.