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. Keep arguments, in the main, focus on the fact that this fetish exists, so we should have a page on it even though the page can't contain an article verified by reliable sources. Please remember the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis as written). The fact that it exists to some extent isn't the question; its verifiability or lack of it is the key to whether we can write an article on it. Some also point out that we have other unsourcable articles on fetishes, to which WP:POKEMON has a very good response - as did your mother when she told you that "two wrongs don't make a right". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellypunching[edit]

Note: have made some significant changes to try and justify the article further. They are basic but hopefully satisfy enough to let the article continue existing, while being improved.--Brokethebank 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes added a bunch of links, but they consist of yahoo groups, personal websites, and a couple porn sites which themselves are non-notable. None of these are reliable sources, none of them help with the fact that this article still violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Unverifiable content can't stay on wikipedia, no matter how much some people might like said content. --Xyzzyplugh 15:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Points to consider - It's not about liking (or in your case, disliking) this entry, but about showing dilligence in mapping out within Wikipedia all these various concepts that exist in the world.

1. Some concepts are better cited than others, it's true.

2. However that doesn't mean that some things, which are perhaps more ephemeral, or which came into their own with the rise of the internet, can't be listed.

3. Granted one can't list everything, but I suggest that if one can prove that a lot of people are involved in a concept, and that this concept exists as such, then the concept must surely merit some inclusion, even if that inclusion is limited only to what one can source.

4. As for your grandmother throwing spoons at cats (I haven't met her but I'm sure she's a nice lady), I would think that her eccentricity is too isolated to be reasonably compared with this fetish at hand. I have shown that thousands of people have taken it upon themselves to join public groups around this fetish; and found any number of websites, most which have been around for years, creating a sort of community.

5. It would be a mistake to make an article called bellypunching videos on the basis of the fact of such videos existing, because that would ignore the evident existence of the concept of the fetish.

6. Granted that if one starts a blog on any obscure fetish, it can't be included here; but if 30 or 40 different organizations and people start websites, both personal websites and business websites, combined with free public groups that require membership (membership to which groups as I've stated reaches the thousands) I suggest that a certain minimum has been reached to make it a bonafide concept that some people hold.

7. If you really believe that only things that show up in journals are worthy of existence in WIkipedia, I think Wikipedia will be much the poorer for it. It seems unreasonable to ignore the existence of something that is obvious and evident, from the links I've found (which were incidentally only a small percentage). To wit:

[W]here an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge,

[as the existence of a fetish called "bellypunching" may be deduced]

and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims,

[as this article does not,]

a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources [...] [from WP:NOR]--Brokethebank 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your item 7, I think you are not in tune with the spirit of WP:NOR there. The idea is that we can write (eg) "an apple pie is a pastry crust with an apple filling"; finding a reliable source for that sentence might not be easy, but no-one would try to strike out (as OR) what a huge number of people already know. As it says, such examples are exceptional; extending that principle to an activity like bellypunching is not on. Mr Stephen 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research, and doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability as there are no reliable sources on this. Xyzzyplugh 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment gastergastrizophilia gets no non-Wikipedia hits. -- Scientizzle 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While links may prove this fetish exists, they do not serve as reliable sources with which to verify the factual claims of the article. That something is a sexual fetish does not indicate an inherent notability that would supercede inadequate sourcing. -- Scientizzle 04:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article title gets 864 G-hits. Hoax and neologism. Morgan Wick 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm still concenred about reliable sources, but 864 only fails my personal thresh-hold, not Wikipedia's. Morgan Wick 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. References are cited, and the references cited are evidence that a market exists for this type of pornography, which in turn is evidence for the existence of the fetish. On that basis, the article is not a WP:HOAX. I have not been able to find the term gastergastrizophilia used outside Wikipedia. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The references cited are a personal web page and a website that sells porn movies. The porn site does not discuss the issue at all, but simply has some movies for sale. Neither of these are even remotely reliable sources. Do you believe we should keep articles which don't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, or do you have some reliable sources you haven't mentioned? --Xyzzyplugh 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- obscure and weird, but real. It's been mentioned on alt.sex.stories, so someone must have this fetish. Haikupoet 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  alt.sex.stories is not a reliable source. Please explain how this article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Xyzzyplugh 00:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I beg to differ. If it's on alt.sex.stories, someone got off on it enough to write about it. And there does appear to be a market for bellypunching porn as well. God only knows why, but if people are producing it someone's probably buying it. Haikupoet 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you may have a misunderstanding as to what reliable sources are. From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". And the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If something exists, but it has never been covered in any reliable sources, then we can't have an article on it, because we can neither rely on unreliable sources, nor use original research. --Xyzzyplugh 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • • comment while you are correct about alt.sex.stories, your understanding of policy toward primary sources seems to be off. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia...In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions. A porn site selling 'bellypunching' videos is "easily verifiable without specialist knowledge." We do not need a credible third party to tell us such exists when we see it with our own eyes.
        • Yes, we could consider these porn sites, or the videos themselves, as primary sources, verifying the existence of videos of women being punched in the stomach. However, where does that get us in relation to this article? That leaves an article called Bellypunching, consisting entirely of "Videos of women being punched in the stomach exist", which would mean we'd need to rename the article "bellypunching videos" or something similar, which would violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and need to be deleted, as the article would simply be a rephrasing/definition of the title. And, look, you can't water down WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to the point where ANYTHING becomes reliable. Suppose my grandmother enjoys throwing spoons at her cat, and writes about it on her myspace account and makes a video of it which she posts online. Can we have a wikipedia article called Cat spooning or Grandmother spoon throwing or Spoon thrown at cat hobby? No. Attempting to grab bits from parts of policies and put them together to suggest that everything in the world is a primary source and therefore we can have an article about everything, simply won't work. --Xyzzyplugh 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR... not verifiable and apparent original research.--Isotope23 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete It definitely does exist, I remember a whole website of anime pictures of various video game females getting socked in the gut, often puking as a result. I think it was a SomethingAwful Awful Link of the Day a couple years back. That said, damn near everything is some kind of fetish to someone out there (window cleaning fetish! omelette-making fetish! hard-drive-defragmenting fetish!) and that doesn't mean we need an article for everything that gives folks their jollies. I think this one in particular is probably hard to back up with reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom: though this fetish may exist, and may be documented on a website selling pornography and may be document on alt.sex.stories, those are not reliable sources, and thus it is unverified by any reliable sources. --Iamunknown 02:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral What - no pointlessly gratuitous obscure Simpsons reference? Bwithh 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to domestic violence (f*&%ing sickos) --Xrblsnggt 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even though there's no way I could source it myself while at work. MLA 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What's your reason for choosing Keep? --Xyzzyplugh 12:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment my reason for recommending keep is that I believe it's a notable practice and I know that it is not a hoax and that it does exist. MLA 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need an article on every obscure sexual fetish. (I have no doubt that if you can think up something really obscure someone will practice it) Viridae^Talk 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Although it currently has no reliable sources, it should be kept and improved. Reliable sources need to be found. If we deleted all unreferenced information from wikipedia we wouldn't have that much left... Localzuk ^(talk) 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment but what we would have left would be a quality site that could be counted on for accuracy. Wikipedia would be alot more like an encyclopedia.--Isotope23 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I'm concerned about this article. Whilst it seems hard to verify and highly unusual bordering on unlikely, that doesn't nessessarily warrant its deletion or label it a hoax. I'd say as Andrew Lenahan has heard of this fetish before that warrants a weak keep. Although it needs considerable improvement. Many of the sexual articles are like this though, I don't think deletion is the answer to it. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neither the author of the piece, nor any of us in this discussion, know of any proper sources to verify the information in the piece, though all of it seems plausible, even likely. I think thats an indication that the piece needs fixing, not elimination. Our inability to find gastergastrizophilia on the net neither proves nor disproves anything -- detailed texts on sexual paraphilia aren't left around laying open on the net, and a mild amount of googling for "erotic punching," "belly punishment" or "rough body play" (thats what they call the workshops where they teach you how to take an 'erotic punch') will show that the practice is meither "unlikely" nor even uncommon. Some of it is obviously sex play with a consenting partner; some is not so consensual, and there is a shaded continuum -- but, even in this supposedly liberated age, nobody has any real nummbers -- in part because the participants themselves don't know where the line actually divides consent and abuse. I think it's an important topic, and a research failure isn't a good reason to have no article in this instance. Mark it up for needed citations^{[citation needed]}, and leave it be. Bustter 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable Marcus22 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, existence is not notability, fails WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question For those voting keep while ackowledging that this fails WP:V, a question: why is this worth keeping if no proper sources can be found? Sure, it likely exists and some have heard of the practice, but why should a sexual fetish with a small audience have an article when, say, a webcomic with a small, but clearly existent, following and no relaible third-party media coverage is readily deleted? Why should an article about a sexual fetish garner apparent AfD bonus points?-- Scientizzle 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is this fake? If so, to what extent? Who cares? If Dr. Credible comes along and vets it, fine. If noone does, that's fine too, because you can't expect any better from a poorly known and defined subject. It's still interesting enough to exist.  Cdcon  19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "interesting enough to exist" isn't policy... WP:V is. If nobody comes along to vet this, it is not "fine". Any article that is not verifiable should go. If you can't expect better sources to be produced, then we shouldn't be writing articles about the subject. Not that it necessarily matters, but at least on this topic, it appears that Jimbo agrees with me: "We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality." As a community, condoning poorly or unsourced articles runs counter to that goal.--Isotope23 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right in the broader sense of making Wikipedia a quality, fully verifiable site. But if you think AfD is going to solve that problem, dream on. For the time being, until we develop a robust system to filter out the unverifiable material, I believe it is more important to maintain consistency in what we accept and what we don't. You can argue there are rules in place for that, but how appropriate are they and how well are they enforced? I believe that articles like this tend to be mostly harmless to Wikipedia.  Cdcon  20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess harmless is a matter of opinion. This is a much wider discussion that goes well beyond this topic, so to be brief, consistency is a problem and we should consistently be removing anything that isn't verifiable. Leaving it here just creates the perception that unsourced and poorly sourced articles are acceptible fare on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That perception already exists, but I see your point.  Cdcon  20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD, and Prod, ARE part of our robust system of filtering out unverifiable material. This, right here, is how we delete articles on unverifiable topics. We're doing it right now. Welcome to the system. --Xyzzyplugh 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it you've never seen a robust system before?  Cdcon  20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Something like 250 articles a day are being currently deleted through Prod and AfD. That's 7500 a month, 90,000 a year. Seems robust to me. --Xyzzyplugh 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to re-creating if verifiable sources can be found. AFAICT, unverifiable by any reliable source. TheronJ 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Since this page has gone through a bunch of edits, let me reaffirm my delete. No offense, but the existence of videos and webpages doesn't establish that the alleged fetish is notable. I'm also very doubtful that using exclusively online sources can meet the reliable source criteria. TheronJ 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No journals or articles mention this, using LexisNexis as a search tool. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strongly suspected hoax. If it ain't on L& O Svu, it ain't real!205.157.110.11 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 205.157.110.11, the best deletion reason I've seen for any of these fetish articles that have gotten AFDed lately. (Seriously, for lack of sources.)--Kchase T 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Those voting keep may be best to actually read the WP:V policy once again (please delete - to be honest I'm still shocked that Donkey punch remains) - Glen 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:V, unreferenced, never heard of such a term, very likely to be a hoax. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 06:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- while it is a weird business, it is something that exists, and while it may not be well known I don't think it's so wildly obscure that it falls into NOR. As said above, references should be found. A lot of internet things are uncited in journals, and most of them should be ignored, but sometimes I think a compendium of citations is enough to warrant a keep: google brings back 900 hits for bellypunching, and over 20,000 for "belly punching". (Also, I understand that for instance this forms a sizeable part of Japanese sexual culture; but my japanese isn't too great) --Brokethebank 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BTW, I made up the word gastergastrizophilia, since I've studied classical languages a lot (in this case Greek) and it seemed like the appropriate move to put this article in the list of sexual paraphilias on such a page. Maybe I should have not done that; in any case bellypunching still is a known term. --Brokethebank 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Maybe I should have not done that"; you are right, read WP:NOR Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment You also introduced "abspunching" as a term for 'the male to male' form, yet the only reasonable ghit for this is a female 'catfight' site in russia. Seems the bulk of the info here is you 'winging it.'

• Delete -- twisted, perverted, unsourced, original research. Also WP:BEANS and WP:BALLS. Goodbye cruft! Morton devonshire 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete However, *not* based on subject matter, simply for failing policy. Any one editors/collective editors' tastes don't account for anything... just V, RS, and notability (since so many are making jokes and judgement calls above). There's some nasty, nasty stuff detailed in some articles here that I think are just... well, wrong, but that obviously shall never nor should be grounds for deletion. Closing admin: base merit solely based on policy, nothing else, and discount all the humor/judgemental stuff please. rootology (T) 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scientizzle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Rootology and [[[User:Isotope23]]. No cited, verifiable sources. I see none such in "keep" arguments. I "saw in in a newsgroup" or "heard about it somewhere" don't count. Might I add that the external link to sex videos causes me to question the purpose of the article. Contains word someone made up? Good grief and WP:NOT. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fairly extensive fetish it seems like. There aren't many scholory articles on furries but that seems to be able to be sourced, I imagine anyone putting some work into it can find sources for this. -M^ask 00:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We put work into it, we found no sources. --Xyzzyplugh 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is extensive intrest in this phenomena. It's a well-followed fetish (as evidenced by it's popularity at FetishCon). It's part of our realilty, why deny it by deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.247.75 (talk • contribs)

  Because of Wikipedia:Verifiablity. --Xyzzyplugh 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Has anyone visited an academic library to see what might be written about this in a scholarly book or journal? Sometimes information that's not readily available on the net can be found in traditional print sources. In fact, this point may be worth raising whenever it's suggested that a point in an article is unverifiable. Books are good. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you just volunteered for the job. Let us know what you find. --Xyzzyplugh 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hits for "bellypunching" (or "gastergastrizophilia") in: Journal of Sexual Aggression - none; Archives of sexual behaviour - none; Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment - none. Not a major grant-farming subject, it seems. Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Google will confirm for you that "erotic punching," "belly punishment" and "rough body play" all exist, at least enouh that some are trying to make money with them. primary sources are permitted, see WP: NOR, In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources... Few here seem to have read this. The article, however, is stinky, and needs to be fixed. Bustter 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're suggesting that we make an article called Google hits on "belly punishment", consisting of the results of a google search, I have to say I'm rather sure it would violate WP:NOT. Seriously, though, you're looking for a loophole in WP:V and WP:NOR which doesn't exist. The fact that a phrase can be found in a google search on a number of webpages, combined with the fact that this phrase is used in the title of some porn videos, does not justify a wikipedia article. You just can't make a wikipedia article by combining "some webpages have the term 'bellypunching' in them" and "Some videos of women being punched in the stomach exist, and some of these videos have the term 'bellypunching' in the title". This does not equal an article, this yields a dictionary definition, and a questionable one at best. It's not an accident or a coincidence that WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT when combined disallow wikipedia articles based on nothing but message board postings and porn videos, this was done on purpose and there is no loophole. --Xyzzyplugh 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable information that is worth including in an encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, this type of porn does appear to exist. (But then, what type of porn does not? The Internet is to porn what the proverbial typewriter monkeys are to literature.) What matters here is that there are no reliable sources for any of the statements the article makes about bellypunching - as Xyzzyplugh said above, we'd have to stub it to "Bellypunching porn exists". And that's even assuming every flavour of Internet porn is also notable, which I submit is not the case. Sandstein 19:35, 16 August 2006 (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.