Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freckle 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Freckle fetishism
Put up for {PROD} by User:Xyzzyplugh under rationale, "Article is original research, unsourced. Unless some reliable sources can be found for this, it needs to go." Felt this should go through AfD. --Groggy Dice 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think that we all would agree that freckle fetishism exists, and probably most of us that there should be an article on it. The reason cited in the PROD was not that the topic was unencyclopedic or not-notable, but that there was an original research/sourcing issue. I don't find that a sufficient rationale for deletion. There has been no attempt to mark up the article with specific {fact} requests. --Groggy Dice 05:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you oppose? The article or its deletion?  It's either "Delete" or "Keep". CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, clarified to keep. Must have move requests on the brain. --Groggy Dice 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I agree that it exists, but there are a lot of fetishes that exist. I don't want to say that they're not notable, per se, or unimportant, or anything of that sort, but there does have to be some sort of cutoff, or we could get infinite fetish entries. I don't think this one is really above the Wikipedia cutoff, wherever that would be. I could be swayed by evidence to the contrary. GassyGuy 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only about 100 non-wikpedia ghits, of which nearly all seem to be bare listings in other wikis or smilar sites, without any more detail. This may merit listing in another article (perhaps paraphilia), but there's insfficient external evidence to suggest that it merits a article of its own. --BrownHairedGirl 08:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Every fetish cant have an article. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is not verified. Google hits I see are blogs and forums... not reliable source... while I'm sure there are people out there who have this fetish, this is an excellent example of what WP:V refers to when it states verifiability, not truth.--Isotope23 14:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't have articles on everything. I'm sure there are people with dead-rat fetishes, but that doesn't mean there should be an article for it. (Okay, maybe that was a little extreme, but you get the idea.) --Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Isotope23. The articles on the major fetishes show a good deal of craft, but by the time we get to topics like this the craft is ebbing. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There are 6.5 billion people in the world, each with their own particular turn-ons. You don't need an article for every single one. --Xrblsnggt 02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnecessary article per above. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The same user who originally put this article up for {PROD} has been putting up a lot of fetish articles for {PROD} these past few days, this is just the first one I noticed. So those who want Wikipedia cleared of minor fetishes will apparently see their wish granted. As for this article, I know that lots of people like freckles, so I assumed that freckle fetishism was also a fairly large fetish. However, those who have run the Ghits have found relatively few hits. Perhaps there just aren't that many people whose appreciation of freckles rises to the level of a fetish. Cultural factors could be at work: a guy with a blonde fetish is simply a guy who likes blondes; a guy who likes sex dolls has a sex doll fetish (inflatable fetishism is another article on {PROD}; and perhaps guys who like freckles don't think of themselves as having a fetish. Or it may be too closely related to redhead fetishism to have a distinct identity. At any rate, its apparently small webprint comes as a surprise to me. --Groggy Dice 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a response to your original vote on the top of this page, as well as to the immediate above comment. No original research and Verifiability are of paramount importance, without them wikipedia would not be an encylopedia, but instead just a bunch of people writing whatever they feel like at the moment.  If a minor fetish has never been covered in any reliable source, how are we to have an article about it that anyone could trust?  Making up stuff about the topic ourselves, or relying on some blogs or personal websites, does not produce an encylopedia article.  --Xyzzyplugh 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources, fails google test. Whether it exists or not it must go per WP:V.  Eluchil404 21:24, 6 August 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.