Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fur massage


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fur massage

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable topic. Zero ghits on Books or Scholar Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure it's real, but WP's rules do not allow an article without published sources about the topic.Borock (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick note: not so. An AfD can close as "kept" if there is sufficient indication, possibly from published sources, that the topic meets notability guidelines; the article does actually have a reference to a published book. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know how you got zero hits, nom, but I got more than zero. Kenilworth and Borock, are you both of age for steamy literature? Seriously, Google Books delivers a number of sources that establish notability. I will stick a few in the article, though possibly in an inelegant manner. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Old enough to know that a "fur massage-glove" is not the same as a "fur-massage glove", that the book quoted is a work of fiction and that "für massage" is German for something different.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, fiction it was, as I thought I indicated, but don't tell Mrs. Drmies, who thought it pretty exciting. "Für" means "for"; those hits are obviously to be disregarded. This particular hyphen issue (hyphen-issue?) strikes me as semantic.
 * I don't see the text at the urls given for the Macleod and St Claire references. Do they go beyond dictionary definitions?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep supported by several references. It does not need a whole book on the topic, a page or two in several books is enough to justify the article existence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Drmies and I have fixed up the article and added references. This article now meets the requirements of WP:N -   Hydroxonium (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is there about the article which is worth having it be a separate article from the main massage article? In what way is this any different from making an article like white keyboard or 19 inch monitor or itchy sweater?  Keyboards can be white, monitors come in different sizes, sweaters can be itchy, we can find references to this in various places, but it doesn't mean we need a separate article for them.  Massages can be done using any number of fabrics, tools, substances, and fur is one of them.  I see nothing in this article which isn't essentially contained either in the title or the main massage article. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news search and Google book search both show plenty of results. Others have sorted through some of them and found valid sources.   D r e a m Focus  04:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Several sources indicate notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I obviously have a different access to Google Books, since I can't see text at some of these links. But let me do my best.
 * Lewis. self-published non-reliable source.  11 word definition on the term.
 * Fritz. Can't see text but seems to be irrelevant anyway.
 * Ms. "I like rabbit-fur massage gloves".
 * McIlvenna. Does not mention "fur massage".  Mentions "fur glove" in a list of things you can use for massage.
 * MacLeod. Can't see any text at url supplied.  Quote please?
 * St Claire. Can't see any text at url supplied.  Quote please?
 * Mumford. Does not mention "fur massage".  Mentions "fur glove" as a thing to use for massage.
 * None of this adds up to "significant coverage". Can anyone point to anything beyond a definition of the term?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete We already have an article on massage. Fur massage is massage done with fur.  I'm not seeing any indication from the article or from the sources that this needs to be a separate article from the main massage article.  While we do have articles on different types of massage, like Bowen Technique and Medical massage, I can't see any reason to potentially have separate articles for leather massage, fur massage, velcro massage, cotton massage, silk massage, and thousands of other possible fabrics and substances.  Can anyone think of a reason for this to be split off the main article?  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, I've changed my comment above to Delete. All of the Keep votes above merely say "There are sources saying that this exists".  Marge Simpson's hair exists, but we don't have a separate article on it.  The entire content of this article boils down to "Fur massage is massage done with fur".  The rest of it is content which could go in the main massage article, if it were worth having there, which is probably isn't. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   express 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources for specific notability. Merging into Massage is over=generalizing.    DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 23 October 2010 (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.