Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elastic men/women fetish

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elastic men/women fetish

No reliable sources on this, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified eaolson 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Until such time as WP:V is met I would assume this is a hoax - Glen 01:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Gomu gomu no delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Fails WP:V per nom and above. 5 ghits. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn and unverified fetish - Bootstoots 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN and WP:V. Michael 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, although unfortunately I fear this is not a hoax, but either way no WP:V -- Deville (Talk) 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. it is a true fetish, but not topical/informative User:CollegeExpress
• Delete like most of these extremely-minor fetish articles, it's "real" but not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete unless verifiable sources can be cited. I don't think this is a hoax. With sources, this could be encyclopedic. But the burden to provide sources lies with the author(s). Scorpiondollprincess 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless substantially improved. These labels for sex fantasies are fairly self-explanatory, and only a very few of them have enough cultural reach to be worthy subjects for encyclopedia articles. Not convinced of this one's merit. Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. rootology (T) 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I think this exists, but if we had an article on every existing fetish, we'd have to double the number of current articles. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Leuko 17:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, no reliable sources can be found at the moment. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NN and WP:V *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, fails WP:V, per nom. I've got a fetish for Mister Fantastic. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• DeletePer WP:V BookLover 04:53, 11 August 2006 (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.