Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflation fetishism

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, anons and new users discounted and not much prove that is meets WP:V. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inflation fetishism

Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 22:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• No vote It's real, although quite bizarre. I would have figured sources probably exist for this somewhere, since it isn't all that uncommon, but perhaps not. A Google Books search didn't seem to pull up anything on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but look for sources and trim unverifiable material. I'm quite well aware that verifiability is important, but this kind of subject is generally hard to find good sources for - give it a bit of time. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Nv8200p talk 12:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, its real, and its a very detailed article, not a current event or anything. But as for verifiability, thats always going to be hard when wikipedia's value of what counts as a reference limits "internet based" cultures from being verified. Zevensoft 02:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not "real", if it is not verifiable and I can write a detailed article about any nonsense. As far as "internet based" cultures, they tend to be anecdotal. -Nv8200p talk 12:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying something isn't real because its not verifiable is very dismissive and calling it nonsense is being very offensive to many people I'm sure. However since this article does not qualify as per wikipedia policy, perhaps a Merge into Inflatable fetishism would be more appropriate, since the two subjects are both minor and related. Zevensoft 06:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete unless reliable sources are added. Is it real? Yes. Is it a notable fetish? Yes. Is it a decent article? Yes. Is that enough to overwrite policy? No. If it can't be reliably-sourced, it has no place here. GassyGuy 08:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. Dekimasu 09:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree this is WP:OR and not WP:V. Eusebeus 11:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is it verifiable? JASpencer 19:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is verifiable, There are two books out on odd fetishes, the first is called Deviant Desires, and was published in 2000.Amazon book page There is another book, a French one, but I'm not sure on the name. --Dragon6860 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE. WP policy is absolutely clear on this type of situation.
  • Articles must be sourced. It is one thing to not cite sources on things like "William Jefferson Clinton was a President of the United States" that are common knowledge and can easily be confirmed either by checking the Internet, a library, a map, or other common research tools. It is another thing to not cite reliable, credible sources for this kind of material that is virtually unknown.
  • Almost everything about this on the Web is copied from this article.
  • There are all sorts of psychologists, sociologists, etc., who come up with all sorts of "new" illnesses, syndromes, etc., that never wind up recognized by their field. The fact that one or two books may mention an idea does not make it "recognized".
  • Verifiability is not the sole criterion. Even if something is true and verifiable--even with sources--that does not automatically make it notable and "encyclopedic" under WP policy. If there is virtually nothing about this on the Internet, most likely that disqualifies it from being "notable" enough to meet WP policy--even assuming it is true.
  • The Yahoo link is to their "Inflatables" directory, not "inflation fetishism". (I changed the description.) No one disputes that blow-up dolls, etc., constitute a fetish. But that does not qualify as "inflation" fetishism. There is already an article on Inflatable fetishism.
  • Without verifiable recognized credible sources it constitutes original research. The fact that something is mentioned somewhere (even in a published book) does not automatically qualify as both "recognized" and "credible". The author(s) cited has to have reasonable credentials and the work must be accepted by peers in his field as reasonably reliable and of some significance even if the majority of his peers reject it. RickReinckens 21:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• No vote I'm just too disgusted to vote. Really. There are certain things you should not do, not ever do, with blueberry juice. That's just disgusting. Waste of a good antioxident.Noroton 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. One cranky author's book isn't sufficient material for an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete; probably real but WP:V prevails. Sandstein 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This has a ton of hits on Google, is known within the dA community and is related to other fetishes. 76.18.163.141 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep re Deviant Desires.
• Delete - unsourced and not notable LeContexte 22:46, 13 October 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.