Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German 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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German fetish

admitted neologism, original research, or near-nonsense - take your pick Opabinia regalis 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Cholmes75 prodded on the 26th, prod contested by Anonymous25 - subsequent request for cleanup got one minor grammar change. Ostensible footnotes are missing. This is a bad thing to stumble across when hitting the random article button. Opabinia regalis 04:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with everything Opabinia regalis said about that article. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Deletenon-notable nonsense --MarsRover 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sandstein 05:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks references, seems to be OR and nonsense. — TheKMan^talk 05:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, admitted neologism, non-verifiable sexual fetish. JIP | Talk 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any references to this usage. Mr Stephen 11:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (no surprise I imagine). --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, original research. --Terence Ong 14:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Terence's comments above.
• Delete per nom. The article is clearly a spoof of Asian fetish. Шизомби 12:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neo-whatnot RicDod 19:51, 3 June 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.