Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncommon fetishes

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 Dismissed; possible rename. Article was just created as a merge target. No prejudice against renomination at a later date. (The point of the article was to merge all the other minor fetish articles into one.). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 07:01Z

List of uncommon fetishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unverifiable listcruft. What kind of criteria makes a fetish "uncommon"? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's nothing listed at all! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (but see comment below). I can provide a complete list of fetishes: you can find it at Special:Allpages. Seriously, one can have a fetish for almost anything (okay, maybe List of asteroids/123001–124000-fetishism would be a little too weird). The author has stated that "this is a work in progress" but it's a project that never will be finished. --N Shar 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Keep. Please note the discussion on the article's talk page about changing the title to List of fetishes. This would include, of course, only fetishes which are identified in reliable, published sources (which Special:Allpages is not). The article has been in existence one day and its purpose is to get rid of a lot of stubs. Let's give it a chance at least. You are right about the asteroids, though. Who really cares about "123001–124000" when there's List of asteroids/34501–34600. Now that's something I'm sure everyone fantasises about! -- Black Falcon 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I like "List of fetishes" a lot better than "List of uncommon fetishes." Although the latter would seem to be a subset of the former, this is not the case -- "List of fetishes" implies that only notable fetishes will be included, while "List of uncommon fetishes" suggests that fetishes that are notable enough for their own articles will not be included, while other, less notable ones will. I support a move. --N Shar 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm sure the main article on fetishes has a list, with links to articles about major fetishes. As said above, one can fetishize just about anything - which to my mind means listing them all is pointless. Is there anything notable or different to be said about, say, mirror fetishes as opposed to chair fetishes as opposed to floor wax fetishes? I doubt it. --Brianyoumans 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although one can fetishize everything, WP:Attribution will require that only fetishes that are documented to exist in published sources (and that therefore have official names--like phobias) are listed. -- Black Falcon 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because something exists doesn't mean we need to rush out and list it. I agree that phobias are a very similar situation, and that pretty much only notable phobias should be listed, with perhaps a few examples of more obscure types. --Brianyoumans 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree and think/hope the same principle (that you note for phobias) will be applied in this case. -- Black Falcon 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question I don't think this article is meant to be an actual list. It's been poorly named in that case. My understanding is that it is intended to be a place where several stub articles will be merged (after discussion on those articles' talk pages). Might it be a better idea to userfy the article until all the details of possible merges have been worked out? Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm trying to get articles that are currently stubs and fetishes to be merged into the article, I think It's a bit unfair that this is article is up for deletion the same day it was created, with out allowing me to add the content to the list. Most people find it rude if you just start merging pages without asking first.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Al-Bargit 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Delete What is a common fetish?[reply]
• Delete What exactly is difference between a common and uncommon fetish? It's subjective. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Changed to no opinion except about the name. I hoped to learn something about myself but the page is empty! And the word "uncommon" has simply no chance to be unanimously interpreted on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is empty because the article was created just 1-2 days ago and is currently subject of discussion on this AfD and its talk page. Please see the discussion on Talk:List of uncommon fetishes to rename the title, as well as the comments by Robotman and Honeymane above regarding the actual purpose of the article. -- Black Falcon 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your edit summary, I wholly agree that the article is inappropriately titled. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content into Sexual fetishism and Delete. TonyTheTiger 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-contradictory, impossible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is material to be found on every one or almost every one, and there should be a chance to develop it. It is highly inappropriate to delete a major in the middle of active construction., DGG 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete "uncommon" = POV. This is unsalvageable. JuJube 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sound like a broken record per my reply to Pavel Vozenilek, please see the discussion on Talk:List of uncommon fetishes to rename the title, as well as the comments by Robotman and Honeymane above regarding the actual purpose of the article. Also please consider that the article had existed for a day before it was AfD'd. -- Black Falcon 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and let the talk page determine its new location and function. Pomte 06:52, 26 February 2007 (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.