Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreskin fetish (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Foreskin fetish
Non-notable sexual fetish -- DanBlackham 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Foreskin fetish was nominated for deletion on 26 Nov 2004. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Votes for deletion/Foreskin fetish.


 * Undecided. In my opinion the same standard should be used for this article that is used for Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish (second nomination). Both articles passed a vote for deletion once before.  Both articles are fairly typical of the other articles on less common forms of sexual fetishism. -- DanBlackham 12:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dan, the nomination is effectively a vote. If you've changed your mind, you should withdraw the nomination. Jakew 13:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a reason for deletion here. If the fetish is real it should have an article. -- JJay 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The same standard should apply to the article circumcision fetish. The foreskin fetish article a relic of POV warrior Robert the Bruce -- DanBlackham 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do not believe that AfD is the place to resolve some edit war you may be involved in. Maybe you could formulate some reasons for this AfD or withdraw the nom. -- JJay 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep if its been kept once, thats good enough for me... Jcuk 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (TBD) Question for nominator: in Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish (second nomination), the nominator voted keep on grounds that the same standard ought to be applied to fetish articles. Here, the nominator proposes deletion despite the fact that, unlike that article, this one has sources, and Google returns twice as many hits (indicating more notability). Please would the nominator explain his reasoning, so that I can evaluate it prior to voting. Jakew 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. 23skidoo 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep, despite the article's many, many, many problems and constant revert warring. I think most of the fetish articles are problematic.  Exploding Boy 18:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete In this case, a fetish is an attraction to a non-sexual object. The foreskin is a normal part of the male sex organ and, thus, is a normal part of sexual arousal. If you allow this, you might as well have articles for "penis fetish", "labia fetish", "vagina fetish", etc. --smt 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, SMT. Jakew 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't agree. I think you're right in most cases, but in this case there is a small but visible community of people who fetishize the foreskin, and this community itself uses the term "foreskin fetish."
 * Can I just remind everyone that we're discussing whether Wikipedia should have the article, not whether the subject of the article is real or not. Jakew 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't care much about this article, nor do I find foreskin fetish worthy of an article (why not something like worshipping the penis?), but it is related to circumcision fetish which I insist must not be deleted. And it would be discrimination to remove one and keep the other. Dabljuh 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please it has already been kept already once Yuckfoo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As it stands, the article is awful. It could be made a little better, but with only one reference in the literature, it could never be much more than a stub. Jakew 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dabljuh. Risk of systematic bias. Stifle 21:32, 10 January 2006 (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.