The point I am trying to make is that when rules are applied unevenly, so too is the backlash from those who get the short end of the stick.Please do tell me where all of Numa Numa's reliable sources are, surely that article should be stubbed if there isn't anything other than fancruft.But it is stubbing an article when the sources are blatantly unreliable and most fo the article was WP:OR.* Neutrality isn't gutting an article when perfectly verifiable sources were presented. Welcome to the world of verifiability, reliable sources] and neutrality.It was a reasonable article last time I visited, Now it looks like a dictionary defenition- user:GeorgeFormby1 17:46 10 March 2008 -Preceding comment was added at 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, Wikipedia needs sources, and not just sources but reliable sources. That they're related concepts is obvious. Nobody is saying this is cannibalism- we're saying 'see also cannibalism'. It's a 'see also', and the link is so obvious that it needs to be there. see also is for linked or related concepts, which this clearly is. Some random personal website isn't a reliable source. William Ortiz ( talk) 14:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC) The sources and content fail WP:V or WP:RS.The overall article is the same, but is now up-to-date. I also rewrote some information, as well as deleting unneeded ones. Nuclear Vacuum 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I just gave the article a 'clean up.' I personally browsed the internet to find confirming resources and data. Allow me some time, and I assure that this article will be up-to-date and unneeded to be erased. Please do not erase or delete any information on this, article simply because the reference is not up-to-date. So the current references are best to describe this article, until new ones can be obtained.

But since vore is a relatively new fetish on the web, articles are scarce. All information on this article is referenced and up to date. I want to discuss the two recent deletions of this article.

4chan archive minnesota thread