Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuck fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stuck fetishism

Stuck fetishism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non compliant with the policy attributable. Read the policy and you will see it is non-compliant, then if you search for reliable attribution for the article in accordance with policy as I have, I think you will find it qualifies for deletion as un-attribut-able. Lotusduck 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I know this isnt quite standard, but I would like to suggest that perhaps any subject about which there is a google Group or other online community with more than a few members, it is notable. this is how the web is documented. It means that information exists. DGG 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course it should be cleaned up, but the large amount of forum links surely say something about the subject. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevance? My afd isn't about notability. AFD discussion closers are authorized to ignore votes that have nothing to do with the reasons for nomination and run contrary to policy and even guidelines.Lotusduck 03:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: wouldn't this mostly be a minor variation on bondage? If so, it could probably be merged there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If it had any content, I would agree. However things as they stand, it's a neologism definition with no sources. Nothin' to merge.Lotusduck 03:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per NeoFreak. I'm not seeing any sources, and this is at best an extremely obscure fetish. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete lacks reliable sources. What external links there are go to sites which demand viewers' email or other things you might not wish to give out to view pictures or videos. Will stipulate there are "fetishes" about every conceivable action, object, condition or body part, but each needs multiple verifiable independent sources with nontrivial coverage to deserve articles in Wikipedia. Edison 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above; fails WP:ATT --Haemo 00:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It could use some editing and cleanup but I see no reason to delete. --Darth Borehd 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest you read our attribution policy. NeoFreak 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Effectively unsourced. —Cryptic 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Links given already might qualify as weak attribution. More severe interpretations of WP:ATT, fail the pokemon test, because most pokemon cannot be attributed to any strong sources. Can someone clarify when a strong source is necissary and when a weak source is appropriate? 69.140.15.143 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "weak" source or a "strong" source. There is only reliable and unreliable. Pokemon has primary sources in its published material. This article does not have that benefit as it is not discussing a product. NeoFreak 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The multiple web sites devoted to it are such sources. they demonstrate the existence of the fetish=fascination based on emotional, usually sexual, feelings. Whatever they may or may document about individual's behavior in the real world is not the issue--they document that people have a fascination for the idea. I don't; I'd never even heard of it. They documented it to me. I still do not see why anybody would find this appealing, but it has been shown that they do. I wish others to have increase in knowledge from the article that I did. DGG 06:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)the same
All of the sources listed in Pokemon, are self-published or relly entirely on self-published sources. It no more follows that a major corporation is a reliable source for a neologism refering to a no where else existing fantasy creature, then that a sizable community is a reliable source for a neologism refering to an abstract pycho-social identification. This doesn't speak to notability, but if no sexologist has written about this paraphilia, the writing of a fetishist is a primary source. There seems to be enough non-contensious, non-selfserving information between the various links given, for a short stub. I see strong need for article revision, and improved sourcing format, but I'm still not seeing a consistant policy for sourcing which supports a deletion. 69.140.15.143 14:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Stuck_fetishism_6a81.html"