Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear fetish

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 due to lack of verifiability. Veinor (talk to me) 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fear fetish

Fear fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable sexual fetish, original research, no references. Contested prod, procedural nomination. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You're real dirty, nominating all these fetishes for deletion, you know that? ;-) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure we can really call this unverifiable, since I would assume this does actually exist. I don't seem to be able to find anything on it, but searches for "fear fetish" don't find much useful and fear fetish (without the quotes) gets a whole ton of results that aren't related. I'm not comfortable enough to !vote either way, so it'd be nice of someone with better searching skills than I take a look. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if this would fit into some larger category, that may help look for RS. For what it's worth, I did find a site that lists so called "common" and "not so common" fetishes, and I don't see this, unless it's under a different name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - it definitely exists, but sourcing is the important thing. I'd have no qualms about saying keep if some sort of verifiability can be found. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's been in the Simpsons for crying out loud (I think), extremely notable. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per unverifiable, unsourced, lack of sources available, <snark>and as fancruft if it's been in the Simpsons (I think)</snark>. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless secondary sources are found to prove notability (the Simpsons doesn't count as a secondary source).--Carabinieri (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unsourced, and a neologism. Redblueball (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2008 (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.