Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast expansion fetish


 * 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 no consensus. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Breast expansion fetish

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced. Policy says articles must be attributed to published sources. If this can be attributed to published sources, why not add those citations before you vote, but after you review policy on acceptable sources? Lotusduck 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there is doubt that a topic is real, then the lack of sources can be used to remove quickly. But this is a notable enough fetish and someone else can go hunting for so-called "published" sources (an extremely outdated and 20th century term, incidentally. People need to understand that online sources are just as viable in 2007; this is not a sign of support for the particular sources currently cited in this article). 23skidoo 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ski, I am quoting policy. Articles on wikipedia must be backed and back-able by "reliable sources". Also it's confusing to say that you don't support the sources currently cited in this article, because no sources are cited by the article? Lotusduck 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No reliable sources and lots of POV Original Research. Valrith 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's enough objective, encyclopedic information here to make it worthwhile. - Richard Cavell 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In order to improve the article I have moved most of the unreferenced terms into talk: essentially the entire article, since improving the article while deletion is undergone is encouraged. Lotusduck 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable sources can be found to prove its notability; this article is a year and a half old, and such sources should have been found by now. — Krimpet (talk/review) 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a fairly prolific fetish, particularly in fetish erotica fiction and in hentai. I have added a reference to the article and have referred the article to someone more knowledgeable in this area than I in order to reference some of the specific information that has been moved to the talk page. Some of the information that was moved probably shouldn't have been as it is relevant and based upon recurring topics of discussion within some of the pages listed under "external links" (and it makes it much harder for that material to subsequently become referenced as it's somewhat "hidden"). Much of the information that needs citing can probably be found within those links, however I do not currently have time to look through the sites that the links point to in order to find it (nor do I particularly care to as this sort of thing is not my "bag," as they say). LaMenta3 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, zero reliable sources are present. RFerreira 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per failure to have multiple reliable independent sources for this obsession with inflatable balloon bazooms. Fails WP:ATT. Edison 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lotusduck. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- text is dictdef, not article -- Simon Cursitor 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-argument. The nominator moved almost the entire article to the talk page just a few hours after she nominated it.  Bad form.  She has been warned about vandalism before.  I will continue to restore the text until this NfD is resolved. --David Hain 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As per 23skidoo's comments. Direct links to thousands of BE stories and morphs and their surrounding communities is enough proof that they exist.  I fail to see how it's possible to be any more "reliable" than that.  If it's necessary to prove every point in the article by linking it to a specific story, picture or animation, then so be it – it can be easily done. --David Hain 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment According to Wikipedia, the stories, morphs, animations etc., would be primary sources, which are considered reliable sources. --David Hain 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: recently there was an attempt to merge fetishes into single article (List of uncommon fetishes). This VfD may be postponed a while to see what comes out of this. Pavel Vozenilek 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom...maybe merge with the article Pavel mentioned. --pIrish 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per LaMenta3 and 23skidoo. There are plenty of "original sources" on this-- just look at the external links. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator of this article has nominated a number of articles about non-orthodox sexual practices, and succeeding in deleting some of them. As anyone who uses an uncensored version of the internet knows, they are all of them in use, they all of them are discussed, and there are abundant illustrations, fictional and real. I do not want to speculate on others' motives. I think I know my own: they are most of them not  things I find personally appealing, except in an anthropological sense. In that sense I find all human behavior interesting, & wish to know about it -- from a safe distance--and I think that people in general do or at least should also find that nothing human is alien to them. An encyclopedia is a relatively safe place. It is better that young people first discover these thing here than on the open web, and I wish such resources had been available to me.
 * Obviously, the sources will be a little different from the usual ones. But many of the cultural phenomena today have sources that are not quite the conventional published sources, and it is time WP acknowledged it. We are finding ourselves in the ironic role of having been one of the makers of this change, but not recognizing it. DGG 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't bite the nom. Lotusduck 03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not long ago, I noted that there was a lack of attribution to this page, but I also admit that I did little to search for reliable sourcing for the fetish. This is one of those topics that I'm sure there will be *something* that satisfies policy and improves the article.  ju66l3r 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IF someone can add reliable sources, then you can, so why don't you?Lotusduck 03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I just said: "...I also admit that I did little to search...". Given the body of work out there, someone, somewhere, has likely commented on it.  In fact, it is the subject of one part of the book Deviant Desires (the lone ref in the article currently).  So, someone has added a reliable source.  More likely exist.  Just because I don't choose to make this my topic of research currently doesn't mean the article should be deleted.  Attribution requires that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source....  This material is attributable (and one ref so far attributes it).  It's also pretty obvious that when the subject is sexual fetish, the NYT or WSJ aren't going to run front page stories concerning the subject.  This pushes our given requirements for "reliability" to their limit and takes longer to find such valid sources.  I don't think it's unreasonable to keep this article until more of these hidden resources are found.  ju66l3r 12:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:
 * additional refs Two additional refs have been added, One exactly on point from the Chicago Tribune. The requirements for V and RS have now been met in a perfectly orthodox manner. DGG 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now two more have been added, N Y Times, and L A Times. Mainstream--it is much harder to find off-mainstream, but since there are 3 major mainstream newspaper articles, think how many there must be in some other publications... . All that was needed was Proquest Newspapers. Are the skeptics satisfied? DGG 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that this article meets the burden of attribution, reliable sourcing, and/or verifiability (depending on which way the wind is blowing through wiki-policy right now). As such I hope the submitter and/or closing admin takes note of the current state of the article and ask that above editors reconsider their comments in light of the recent changes made to the article that address all criticism in the nomination.  Thanks. ju66l3r 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable. Also, this article has a template at the bottom saying that it comes under "Paraphilias and fetishes", a template that has many articles. If this one gets deleted...I would suggest reviewing all the other articles in the "Paraphilias and fetishes" template. Acalamari 22:26, 23 March 2007 (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.