Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoophilia and health

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. If anyone needs the text from this article to merge something, please leave me a message. So Why 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia and health[edit]

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

This entire article is a synth. None of the references seem to contain any information regarding the sexual transmission of these infections being transmitted to humans to animals or animals to humans by any type of sexual contact. Perhaps a merge with Zoonosis may be appropriate. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you decide to do, try to retain the information, a fair bit of which comes from medical studies. I don't object to a merge with zoonosis. The information offers a useful public service by collecting data from a variety of sources. Ratel (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the exact same information is contained in the Zoonosis article. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to check myself, Barbara, so I leave it in your capable hands. That table took a lot of work .... can it be saved? Ratel (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that I do a 'merge' without consensus or discussion? The last time I tried that it turned out poorly and the article I tried to merge was retained with no references at all to support its content. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I just think you won't get a lot of comments here is all. Not sure what the procedure is if few comments come in. Ratel (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I will do if consensus doesn't happen here. I will be bold, and in good faith I will try to work on the article to improve it to the point where it stands on its own with good referencing. I will go over every reference that appears in the article. If sex with animals is not covered in the source I will delete the reference and its contents. So far, I have not found any reference that describes sex with animals in this article. There are less than 30 watchers of this page which may explain the lack of participation here. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article contains several references to studies that describe the practice, such as PMID 12091035, PMID 1083973, PMID 4737141, (the lack of abstracts simply means you have to do a bit of footwork to get the text), so I'm not sure why you claim that you have not found any appropriate reference in the article. In addition, a good editor woould try to work in the following refs: PMID 22023719, PMID 19733331, PMID 28763709. More details can be found on page 267 of Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices [1] where you'll find a much of the article's content confirmed, namely that numerous zoonoses are transmitted by zoophilia practices. If you do not feel up to this task, perhaps leave it to other editors who want to build the encyclopedia. Ratel (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have found are not about diseases. These few, and dated publications do not meet the referencing guidelines for Project Medicine WP:MEDRS which requires high-quality medical references for infections and injuries. For example, see Feline zoonosis which I wrote. The article is about infections you can get from cats. Well-cited and up-to-date. The references you suggest as appropriate are about injuries. One of the articles uses the term bestiality. Another article states you can't get penis cancer from having sex with an animal. Guess I'm not a good editor...admittedly I am slightly familiar with abstracts. All those references listed above could be used in Zoophilia. But I can't find any information about how sexual activity between a person and an animal results in infections being transmitted between them. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the title is Zoophilia and Health. Health encompasses injuries. If you're going to require MEDRS review studies, there is no data, which is not surprising. Ratel (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following your logic, should we have an article entitled Metal sticks and health based on this? We could have pretty much anything and health, there are always articles to be found about anything that affects health. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you strip out the list of diseases that could be contracted, without significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrating how each one is notably a problem in zoophilic situations, you're left with a very short article that belongs as a section in Zoophilia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise solution would be to use a quote from the section on zoophilia-zoonoses from page 267 of Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices [2] listing the zoonoses transmitted by zoophilia, and insert that into Zoophilia. IOW, much of the data from this article could be usefully shortened and transferred into Zoophilia. As I remember, it was only moved to a separate article to combat vandalism, namely because when it was in Zoophilia is was repeatedly removed by IP editors who believed that zoophilia simply cannot result in disease. Ratel (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merging the little bit to that is supported by proper refs to zoophilia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. How has this existed since 2006? This has to be one of the longest-running pieces of WP:SYN mashups in Wikipedia history. There is nothing of value here that is not covered elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2017 (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.