Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand breast slap

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 keep but merge. Normally I would just redirect it and advise that content can be pulled form the page history for a merge, but the intended target is itself a redirect to Breast implant, so it seems that article, this one, and possibly Breast ironing should all be merged into an omnibus article on the subject at Breast augmentation. I would add that the nominator ought to know better than to make such a useless, unhelpful nomination statement that does not cite any policy, or anything at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand breast slap

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

...no. Just, no. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I initially laughed at the idea of this, but it actually appears to have made national news coverage. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely unsourced, unencyclopedic garbage. 'News' coverage is limited to titillating (if you'll pardon) sections in the British Independent. Big whoop - Alison ^❤ 08:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep You would expect at least a little coverage in google books to substantiate and expand upon what the news discusses, even if it was cheesy pseudoscience books, but there's nothing. And the scant amount of news coverage is really not enough to justify keeping the article. Is there a possible redirect target? If not, then outright deletion is the only option here. Silver seren^C 10:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources below have changed my mind to Weak Keep. If one more source can be found that has more than a paragraph on the subject, i'll change to full Keep. Silver seren^C 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better sources found now. Changed to full Keep. Silver seren^C 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article states, the Thai government has endorsed this procedure, pseudoscientific though it is. That in and of itself is enough to make this notable. There are almost certainly going to be lots of Thai-language sources and news articles that could be used. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a horrid approach to article writing. If you are going to write about a foreign subject then make a bit of effort to find sources yourself. People around these parts scream "WP:BEFORE WP:BEFORE WP:BEFORE WP:BEFORE!" to those proposing article deletions, so how about a little bit of a push in the opposite direction; don't make vague hand-waves at "sources that may be out there somewhere" in the subject's native language. If you can't be bothered to do it, then don't write the article for the English Wikipedia in the first place. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are these Thai sources? Google News, Books, and Scholar gives nothing on the subject. A general web search just gives a bunch of blogs and unreliable sources. If you say that these sources are over the place out there, then you should be able to link us to some, right? Silver seren^C 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [updated to KEEP]: Finding Thai news sources is always a challenge because translations are difficult (there always are multiple possibilities), so I don't know what "Thai Breast Slap" was translated from. One blogpost I saw from 2008 dates the procedure back at least to 2003 (in terms of government approval), so I'm not convinced its just garbage because it sounds silly.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 source from google books seems to confirm identity of inventor (not sure if source discusses the procedure from only a snip):, "One Thai breast therapist, Khemika na Songkhla, believes that breasts, being the symbol of feminity, should be big: "Smart women should consider breast enhancement. Women are like cars. After years of use. the car needs some repair".[1]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inane analogy fail on the part of that therapist. :rollseyes: - Alison ^❤ 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, i knew someone would like that quote.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources (will edit to add to this comment if more found) [2] (possible trans. from a thai paper - uses term "breast pat"); *freep link (blacklisted forum): www.free[removethis]republic.com/focus/f-news/841844/posts* (purported 2003 article in Bangkok times, refers to "breast massaging" for same technique); [3] ("Slap on back improves bust"- confirmed June 6, 2001 article in Thai paper "The Nation"); [4] (forum copying purported 2003 article in The Independent) [5] 2007 german article in de:Der_Freitag about process and meeting Khemika; [6] (I am pretty sure bantobnom.com is the main site for Khemika, it has screen shots of tons of thai press stories about the procedure)... --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bouncing breasts on the "official" website made me laugh pretty hard. Silver seren^C 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure its official, because there's an english version too and it discusses cost, etc. I have also found youtube clips of the woman appearing on Thai news shows[7][8] (demonstration on a mannequin included). I know the article and topic is somewhat absurd, but this procedure appears to have received significant coverage in thai press over the last 10 years.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the society and culture section of breast augmentation as one of the many ways people try to enlarge there breasts. Not sufficiently notable for its own article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, there is no breast augmentation article; the term is just a redirect to breast implant. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into breast augmentation, per Doc James. I understandd it is currently a redirect, but it should not be so. Augmentation and implants are different albeit intertwined subjects. Obviously breast augmentation should then be "augmented" with the other prevalent methods.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your vote is that this should be merged to breast augmentation and that breast augmentation should be turned into its own page? Silver seren^C 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Sorry if that wasn't clear.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to breast augmentation. Seems like a fly-by-night oddity with little solid verification. Enough to add as a side fact in the aforementioned article for sure, but not enough for its own stub. Steven Walling 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Doc James above. When the results of the study come out we'll maybe get more RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Expand per Doc James et al. As an aside, can we just call this something like "Breast Slapping"? The current name sounds like a service you would pay for in Bangkok... -- RoninBK _{T C} 12:15, 17 January 2011 (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.