Talk:Wannarexia

angela y cecy Should this have been closed so quickly on an assumption of bad faith? A cursory google search reveals a few recent blog posts and this one article, the other ref doesn't use the term. This article doesn't seem to meet the guidelines laid out at WP:NEO. Any thoughts?IvoShandor 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The newly added sources don't seem to mention the term either, which would violate WP:OR under unpublished synthesis. IvoShandor 23:20, cecy y angela

The better question is should it have been nominated so quickly. Also when doing a proper Google search, you need to vary the search terms. I am adding more refs. Be patient (and please try to help) Dhaluza 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No that's not actually the better question, the question is why shouldn't this be nominated, the burden of proof is on the authors not the nominator. A better question might be why didn't the nominator address concerns here first, but to assume bad faith is, to be frank, quite in the face of assume good faith anyway. Given your condescending response to my perfectly legitimate questions I can see why the nominator didn't approach the talk page here. IvoShandor 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the burden is on the author, but the burden does not need to be carried instantaneously. The nominator also has a burden of due diligence, which is also requires time. Dhaluza 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I don't need your condescending lessons on how to do proper google searches. If a source doesn't call it wannarexia then including it here to back up what wannarexia is becomes OR, period. IvoShandor 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was asking you to help. If that was 'condescending' then please excuse me. Dhaluza 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That is perhaps a reasonable question. It may have been better to discuss my concerns here first. Still, I believe I acted in good faith and am not aware of having violated any policy by nominating the article for AfD when I did. Specifically, "Newly-coined neologisms" is listed without qualification under WP:DP#Reasons for deletion.

Another thought that didn't occur to me until after the AfD discussion was (in my opinion prematurely) closed, is that you might get around the whole neologism business by coming up with a different name for the article. So far, I haven't had any ideas as to what that name might be, however. --Evil1987 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another possibility that was suggested on my talk page is merging this into Anorexia nervosa. --Evil1987 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was a (presumably good faith) mistake (at least for a non-administrator) to close the discussion so quickly with the only "keep" vote coming from the article's author and in an assumption of bad faith. I don't believe WP:DPR#NAC gives non-administrators that type of leeway. --Evil1987 23:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dhar, excused, if it wasn't meant to be conscending, it came off as so through the implication that I basically don't know what I am doin, but I am not really interested in conflict, so your comments to the contrary of how I took the original statement are duly noted.IvoShandor 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

angela y cecy Should this have been closed so quickly on an assumption of bad faith? A cursory google search reveals a few recent blog posts and this one article, the other ref doesn't use the term. This article doesn't seem to meet the guidelines laid out at WP:NEO. Any thoughts?IvoShandor 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The newly added sources don't seem to mention the term either, which would violate WP:OR under unpublished synthesis. IvoShandor 23:20, cecy y angela

The better question is should it have been nominated so quickly. Also when doing a proper Google search, you need to vary the search terms. I am adding more refs. Be patient (and please try to help) Dhaluza 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No that's not actually the better question, the question is why shouldn't this be nominated, the burden of proof is on the authors not the nominator. A better question might be why didn't the nominator address concerns here first, but to assume bad faith is, to be frank, quite in the face of assume good faith anyway. Given your condescending response to my perfectly legitimate questions I can see why the nominator didn't approach the talk page here. IvoShandor 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the burden is on the author, but the burden does not need to be carried instantaneously. The nominator also has a burden of due diligence, which is also requires time. Dhaluza 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I don't need your condescending lessons on how to do proper google searches. If a source doesn't call it wannarexia then including it here to back up what wannarexia is becomes OR, period. IvoShandor 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was asking you to help. If that was 'condescending' then please excuse me. Dhaluza 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That is perhaps a reasonable question. It may have been better to discuss my concerns here first. Still, I believe I acted in good faith and am not aware of having violated any policy by nominating the article for AfD when I did. Specifically, "Newly-coined neologisms" is listed without qualification under WP:DP#Reasons for deletion.

Another thought that didn't occur to me until after the AfD discussion was (in my opinion prematurely) closed, is that you might get around the whole neologism business by coming up with a different name for the article. So far, I haven't had any ideas as to what that name might be, however. --Evil1987 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another possibility that was suggested on my talk page is merging this into Anorexia nervosa. --Evil1987 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was a (presumably good faith) mistake (at least for a non-administrator) to close the discussion so quickly with the only "keep" vote coming from the article's author and in an assumption of bad faith. I don't believe WP:DPR#NAC gives non-administrators that type of leeway. --Evil1987 23:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dhar, excused, if it wasn't meant to be conscending, it came off as so through the implication that I basically don't know what I am doin, but I am not really interested in conflict, so your comments to the contrary of how I took the original statement are duly cecy

Random Thought

Might I suggest to link this page with Munchausen syndrome? (This is generally what "wannarexia" can be referred to medically.) As well, Dhaluza; it may be good to take note of pro-anorexic/wannarexics VS those who are actually eating disordered. As you mentioned above about an article speaks of this. (Going to go and check that out now, by the way, thanks.) 99.246.61.210 (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree to both. I mean, I could understand a link to Munchausen syndrome if someone claimed to have an eating disorder whilst actually their eating habits were just fine. However, what the article describes here are people who have changed their eating patterns, but the term is based around claims that their intentions are different to people who "truely" have eating disorders. Drawing a link would be original research, and also misleading, as Munchausen syndrome is an actual psychiatric disorder, whilst this term seems to have no basis in medical research. We should also be careful to avoid claims as to whether such people are anorexic or otherwise disordered or not, unless that is based on medical evidence - we should note that some people claim that such people aren't really anorexic, and that they criticise such people, but this does not mean that such things are true, nor does it mean that there is any kind of simple divide between the two groups. Mdwh (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also note a certain irony if Wannarexia is itself considered a disorder. I mean, the tone of the article seems critical of such people because they're not really anorexic, but that doesn't mean they aren't suffering from a disorder (which would surely also still be an eating disorder, if their eating habits are actually adversely affected). Mdwh (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There are MANY wannarexics who claim to have an eating disorder, create very complex false histories, fake medical diagnoses, complain about health issues caused by their "eating disorder" that they don't actually suffer from and so on. Many of whom actually photoshop their photos in order to look thinner, and many of these people do NOT alter their diet whatsoever. They simply lie about all of it for attention and pity. I have seen this time and time again, personally. (I investigate and out fakes quite often, actually.) A large amount also have even created multiple false profiles to pose as their parents, siblings or worried friends and will comment on their own accounts to let other users know that "so-and-so" has just been hospitalized for to their "severe anorexia nervosa," when, in fact, none of it is true.

Many of those who are considered "wannarexics" often fit the diagnostic criteria for Münchausen's syndrome or factitious disorder to a T. I hate to sound presumptuous, but are you very familiar with wannarexia, the pro-eating disorder subculture and eating disorders (genuine ones) in general? It is common knowledge amongst those who deal with eating disorders (and those who know about pro-anas. Really, pro-anas and wannarexics are often the same thing in my opinion, with the minority of pro-anas actually having eating disorders) that a large amount of wannarexics deal with attention seeking issues/Münchausen's/Factitious disorders.173.35.102.172 (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete and incorporate into anorexia or pro-ana article

Despite having ten sources, this article has not surpassed three paragraphs in length. If this is really the extent to which such a topic can be elaborated on then it should be incorporated into the anorexia article or the pro-ana article, perhaps as its own section. On its own, wannarexia hardly qualifies as a noteworthy encyclopedia topic. 173.3.10.218 (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, having it's own page (even with it debunked in the text) gives the impression that the term is in some way valid or helpful. Idotrytohelp (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)