Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-ana

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing to this article for a little under a year in hopes of making it something worth keeping on Wikipedia, but recently I've realized that it is not only unencyclopedic, but completely unverifiable. All of it is hearsay. Not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is heresy, but I'm pretty sure it exists. It was probably on Something Awful at some time or other. It does present another viewpoint into anorexia and it should be shown on wikipedia. However, it may be better serving as a section in Anorexia nervosa. - Hahnchen 00:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It exists, but is it verifiable? Are there statistics on pro-ana? Sources? Articles? No. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I applaud the nom for investing time into what I find a reprehensible topic, but it appears legit and encyclopedic. I'd have no objection to the above section suggestion, though. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 01:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Pro-ana and Pro-mia have become important topics lately, and we must have an article on the phenomenon. As for verifiability, I've stumbled myself upon that sort of webpages, and with medical articles that deal with the subject also. The way I see it, we should work on improving the article, not on deleting it. I also commend the nominator for his courage, but this is simply not the way to deal with the problem. Shauri 01:14, 25
  • Keep. I agree with Shauri. Wikipedia is especially important as a source on controversial subjects, even though it's especially hard to keep things factual/descriptive. Galaxiaad 03:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have to disagree with Angel on this one, although I often tend to agree with her. This seems to be a legitimate and growing phenomenon. Keep up the good work, Angel! ♠ DanMS 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, shucks. ;) ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable [1] - I first heard about this stuff in the linked WaPo article last year. The WaPo article is a solid link. Guettarda 01:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable phenomenon. Amren ^(talk) 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't like the phenomenon one bit, but it's certainly real, verifiable and notable. It's also been around for some time now; Here's a 2001 article on the topic from The Observer (UK). Loganberry (Talk) 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A few years back, LiveJournal was swamped with these sites and, I believe, started a pretty active campaign to remove them. Possibly more useful in shortened form as a merge with existing Anorexia nervosa page? Jessamyn 21:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WebMD has an article on this. There have been countless self-help and talk-shows about this topic. It has been featured in books and magazines. It is a real thing in the real world and we need an article on it. Qaz 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a local news paper did an article on pro ana/mia recently, and true it may be getting smaller its still going and was at one point quite large. dragonriseing 10:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Shauri. Maybe this should get a peer review or similar. --Apyule 05:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm voting for a keep on the article and a round of applause for the nominator, who evinces such a conviction in the tenets of scholarly writing that she's willing to put something she worked on for a year on the chopping block if might be unverifiable.—encephalon 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable internet subculture. Klonimus 20:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Census is no longer valid, sure. But that's because it's been a while. Look for new stats. However, pro-ana sites ARE growing, and there are many campaigns to stop them, news articles on them, etc. They're important. We NEED a page on them.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.