Talk:Impregnation fetish

Deletion
This article does not reference or cite its sources. Is this article solely original research? I have no reason to believe otherwise, and I will get around to nominating it for deletion. Lotusduck 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the impregnorium linked site, Lotusduck. The fetish clearly exists and there's clearly many people who have it. I know about the wikipedia standards regarding articles, but despite that: an encyclopedia exists to catalogue knowledge about the world. The fetish exists and since this article is the best information we seem to have on hand regarding it right now, to delete it is irresponsible and pointless. I don't have the time to find sources and improve the thing, but since you seem to want to take it upon yourself to get rid of the article, how about you try to improve it instead? 69.216.117.174 05:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have the time to look for sources but I don't have the sources. The article is original research so I want to get rid of it in accordance with policy, but to rewrite it in accordance with policy I would need published articles.

According to the article as it is, Impregnation Fetish is a kind of fetish for unsafe sex. If the article isn't deleted, would it not be better re-written and merged into unprotected sex?Lotusduck 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even, it's not the same as simply unsafe sex. For one, it's more focused, because the unsafe sex paraphillia contains people that have no interest in getting pregnant. I have a so-called pregnancy fetish, and if you get rid of this just because you are such a rules-lawyer that you'd rather be correct than right... well, shame on you, sir. The world cannot be run by published papers alone, as some things just aren't published. It's a good rule of thumb, but with the absence of any other sources, I'll take my own experience as well as those at impregnorium.net 69.129.205.47 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Mimerrus