Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Fetishism

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

WP:CONTENTFORK. User appears to have forked Ethnic_pornography#Racial_fetishism It also seems to be ripe with original research as well. as well as WP:SYNTH. Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject clearly goes well beyond pornography so complaining about a fork of Ethnic pornography is misplaced. The article references a range of sources about the article subject, many of which are about dating preferences and other topics that have nothing to do with pornography. Although sections might be considered original research, there's plenty of cited material and concerns can be fixed by editing/tagging: this is a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would look at the references, you would see that the majority of the sources are only tangentially related to the subject. For example, the original author cited an online dating study on race, which did not even mention fetishism. This is highly evident of WP:NOR, especially WP:SYN. Tutelary (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of reference coverage of concept. — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Tutelary (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that there are WP:SYNTH issues, but the topic is more notable than just pornographic fetishism. I'll add this article to my long to-do list. I suggest we give it some time to improve and then, if necessary, discuss a merge proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2014 (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.