Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snake play

:{{la|Snake play}}

This is original research, novel documentation of a previously undocumented concept, contrary to our Wikipedia:No original research policy.

The article was created by {{user|Taxwoman}}, since determined to be a sockpuppet of {{admin|Runcorn}}, who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snake_play&diff=prev&oldid=123374649 stated] that xe copied xyr "own material" from "a respected site". In fact, that "respected site" is a wiki, and the article was indeed [http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php?title=Snake_play&action=history written] on that wiki, with no fact checking or peer review process, by an editor whose account name was also the pseudonym "Taxwoman". On that account's user page on that wiki, xe states that xe has contributed content to Wikipedia and then copied it to the other wiki. Clearly, this is not a reliable source, but is a single person contributing to two wikis, and on each using the other wiki as the claim to authority.

So I went looking for sources.

I put various keywords and combinations of keywords into Google Books and Google Scholar, but couldn't find anything at all related to this subject. So I resorted to Google Web. Unfortunately, this is where things get messy. As well as Wikipedia mirrors of this article the other wiki mentioned above has also been mirrored in several places, such as [http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/encyclopervia/Snake_play here] for example. There's also the fact that the text written by "Taxwoman" has been copied and pasted wholesale, again with no evidence of fact checking or peer review, by other people into additional places, such as [http://www.backdrop.net/sm201/index.php?title=Human_animal_roleplay&diff=prev&oldid=6587 this person who incorporated it into xyr own wiki] (violating the GFDL, by the way). I finally excluded everything that was a copy or a mirror, and it turns out that there was nothing left.

This concept has zero documentation anywhere, other than that written by the person who submitted the article to Wikipedia and elsewhere; and that latter has not been through a process of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 13:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom; unlike that of the article, his research looks comprehensive.  RGTraynor  13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and because, disappointingly, no real snakes are used which is a real let down. Nick mallory 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—not much more to say about it. And concur with RGTraynor on another fine bit of research from Uncle G...if only editors who are so good at research and writing didn't also have to expend those efforts in AfD-world. DMacks 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Heh, I'm just a strong partisan of the notion that before an editor nominates an article for deletion, he had damn well better take just five minutes out of his life to gauge whether a casual examination of the evidence supports the action. If editors can't be bothered to do that much, they ought not be filing AfDs. I don't always agree with Uncle G, but when he says he's done some legwork, I trust that.  RGTraynor  16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• I appreciate the trust. But please do your own legwork, too. The more layers of Swiss Cheese here, the better. Uncle G 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GlassFET 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be unverifiable. If deleted this should be removed from {{tl|BDSM}} --W.marsh 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the nom says it all. Mr Stephen 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

: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.