Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female Fat Admirer


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Female Fat Admirer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism, no reliable third party sources Thisglad (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete per above Thisglad (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 13:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I am satisfied that this is a real phenomenon. But, as the nominator has noted, no one has managed to find any references to could be described as WP:RS.  While the suggested merge target Fat Admiration, added to article months ago, also needs better references I think this general phenomenon should be covered.  Deletion of articles should be based on the merits, or lack thereof -- of covering the topic -- not on the merits of the current version of the article.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be merged with Fat fetishism, which does have good references... Geo Swan (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a neologism. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious neologism. I thought they were called Chubby Chasers, anyway? Eddie.willers (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. This didn't need to be relisted. The Earwig (User 20:26, 16 April 2009 (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.