Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetish photographer

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 merge to Fetish art. Shimeru (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish photographer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think you are mixing too things. Deletion should not be decided on the quality of the article, BUT on the interest of the subject. The article is poorly sourced, ok, too short, but this is a notable and interesting topic, from the standpoint of BDSM activities. So I think it should be kept.

PS : it seems you have started a massive deletion campaign of BDSM related articles. Don't be surprised if you read me saying keep in other articles for exactly the same reasons. Hektor (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:Notability#General notability guideline? It states that an article topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Can you please provide links to such coverage of this concept? If not, the article cannot meet the non-negotiable requirement of WP:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source." — Satori Son 20:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is about the concept of "fetish photographer" and whether it is more than a mere dictionary definition. Google books gives 45 hits on phrase, almost all as noun phrases describing a particular person. There are no hits on sources about the concept as such. Similarly, just 5 hits on Google Scholar, none about the concept as such. That suggests that no-one has found it worth while to study the concept in what we normally regard as a reliable source. And that means non-notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source to establish notability separate from photographer or photography.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of fetish artists which would seem to include this profession. It's not really distinct enough in itself to warrant a separate article (or even esoteric academic study it seems). Obviously there are specialized forms of photography and various photographers who might practice such things but it seems Entertainment/Documentary/Artistic --> Animate/Inanimate are the divisions where the actual concept is explored.--Savonneux (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any potentially sourceable content to Fetish art, or if no content can be moved, just a redirect.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourceable content with Fetish art. Epbr123 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fetish art. Joal Beal (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.