Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dental braces fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete - Google hits are not a substitute for reliable sources, and nothing was provided to show that WP:V was met. --Coredesat 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dental braces fetishism

Dental braces fetishism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Contested prod. I doubt this is a very noteworthy fetish, and I don't think that enough sources can be found for this to warrant its own article. --Conti|✉ 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or Speedy - No reliable sources of info on the topic. Seems to be patent nonsense. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are 12,700 Ghits for "braces fetish" (323K hits without the quotes), and those hits show that there are several commercial enterprises dedicated to providing pictures of girls and boys in braces. It's a real sexual phenomenon, and I think sexual fetishes, unless extremely rare, are notable. This one doesn't seem extremely rare. --Hyperbole 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:LOTSOFHITS does not appear to be a policy, whereas WP:V is, and WP:RS is a widely accepted guideline. Perhaps you could help us out by identifying the reliable sources for this term? Guy (Help!) 12:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • When a subject yields thousands of hits, there's a very strong chance that at least one of them is reliable. The existence of the fetish is relatively noncontroversial; it's best to give the editorial process a chance to find appropriate citations. --Hyperbole 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The editorial process has time, 5 days. That it may someday pass Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not a reason to keep. Jeepday 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article should be deleted only if the subject cannot reasonably be expected to pass WP:N or WP:V. If it's reasonably clear that the subject passes those policies, but the article in its current incarnation doesn't prove that the it does, that's grounds for improvement, not for deletion. And setting a five-day timetable is bad policy - we could probably nuke two-thirds of Wikipedia using that reasoning. --Hyperbole 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hyperbole's reasoning. Mathmo Talk 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Semperf 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Because?... Guy (Help!) 12:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:N also note that Wikipedia:Notability_(pornographic_actors)#Dubious_methods_of_establishing_notability talks about Ghits The adult film industry uses Googlebombing to influence rankings on search engines for current performers' names. As a result, the Google test is not suitable to determine the notability of a performer. This is especially the case for performers whose work antedates the Web. While a fetish is not a performer the same theory would seem to apply. Jeepday 04:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Follow up also fails WP:V as it is unreferenced. Jeepday 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another made-up fetish. Come back when there are articles in the relevant academic journals. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hyperbole's reasoning. There are several dedicated websites and forums on this out there, and have been for many years (even by web standards). Only problem is lack of scientific writings, which applies to most fetishes. From personal observation definitely not a "made-up fetish" or "patent nonsense"! The article needs to be edited, though.--George3rd 12:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — George3rd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per Jeepday's reasoning. Just because there are forums and websites out there about the topic, doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:V, Google hits are inflated due to monkeying by porn site owners. Andrew Levine 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
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.