Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflatable 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Inflatable fetishism

 * — (View AfD)

Unsourced article, includes lovely neologism. Reads as original research, if one could dignify it with the word research. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Balloon fetishism, without predjudice against splitting the articles up again if (a) the two paraphilias are, in fact, distinct (an issue I don't feel competent to comment on, fortunately), and (b) independent sources for this side of it are available. Tevildo 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Oh please what is next? The fact that someone seriously filled an entire article (this is far from being a stub) with this clearly demonstrates the level of original research that is going on within these articles. MartinDK 22:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources means that this fails WP:NEO.-- danntm T C 02:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Tevildo (yeah, I'm aware he/she voted to merge; that's just how I roll). From reading the articles I do think both paraphilias can be established as distinct.  The article is in crappy, uncited shape, and needs improvement, but that's not a good argument for deletion, it's an argument for someone to roll up their sleeves and fix it.  Ford MF 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, also it looks like the article was already deleted (with, I must admit with some chagrin, some of the same absurdly and irrelevantly "disgusted" responses of the voting Wiki editors). An interesting aside and voice of support (although he doesn't appear to be a Wiki editor) is this guy's blog.  Not that that's supposed to be a source, but it does speak intelligently to the difficulty of maintaining Wiki articles on fringe sexualities, which is basically what is at question here I think.  Ford MF 04:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. You've got to be kidding.  Madchen Hoch 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. `'mikka 07:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article's virtually unreadable but a quick google search shows it to be a genuine practice Iridescenti 16:35, 1 January 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.