Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navel 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   no consensus. Black Kite 10:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Navel fetishism

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

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just about anything can be a fetish really. Nothing sourceable here. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment At the risk of possible WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS violation, in reply to your first sentence: surely you must also include being bitten, smelling things, and setting things on fire, as well? All three of the other articles have the same number of references or less than this one, and are even more exclusive. At least this article is backed up by references to writings by doctors. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:58 10 September, 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe we're reading different references here but to my knowledge the first reference does not mention fetishism, and instead it refers to a small number of people experiencing a sensory connection between their navel and their genitals; this is not fetishism - to become sexually aroused when one's genitals are stimulated - the manifestation of a fetish is beyond, or necessarily occurs without physical stimulation of the sexual organs, otherwise sexual pleasure would itself be a fetish. The second reference is to a blog - which is not considered a reliable source of verification. The two external links point to sites for people with an interest in the navel, but only one of those indirectly meets the criteria of what constitutes a fetish (and is a commercial site), with the other more relevant to a fetish for tickling. Redblueball (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'd say after looking at List of paraphilias that we should keep it. It gives just barely enough references and external links that we can confidently say it exists.  Simesa (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment We can't be sure for whom it exists though can we? How do we know (without reliable references) that we're not simply writing an article based on the casual whims of three people on one weekend last spring, or the ideas of world's worst entrepreneur? Redblueball (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete . as already said, ANYTHING can be the focus of a fetish. Only very few are recognised specifically by mental health experts, the others just get grouped together. There is nothing here that merits a unique article, rather than addition to the paraphilias list. (The same can be said about most of the similar stubs).Yobmod (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Just as you say, a great many things, though not literally everything--at last not so far-- can be used as a fetish, and for those that actually are, then they are notable, if thre are any reasonable sources at all for their use in fiction or reality. What gets classified by mental health experts has nothing much to do with it. DGG (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Then, what's the reason for "keeping" the article if the fetish can only be referenced to a single commercial web page? What's stopping my friend and I from writing an article about our forearm fetish, or knuckle fetish? Redblueball (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge There exist internet-based interest groups for this sexual interest, but there is little science to suggest that it is different from sexual interests focussed on any other non-reproductive body part. I recommend merging it into partialism.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 03:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- there is a long history of erotic poetry and ancient art that has an erotic focus on the navel. A minute with google scholar dug up many references, including this one... "The navel of an animal is always sweet. Connected intimately to the womb, it is a tunnel and a root. The navel is the knife in the center of the mysterious"  --  Geo Swan (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment That's not a proof of a fetish... features of the body as represented in art, or features of the body used in poetry to represent the whole (person). If we follow this reasoning we can include anything and leave nothing of the notability of fetishism. Redblueball (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete no real WP:RS, no news mentions, the only book mention is 'penthouse', surprisingly, no scholarly mentions.:) Sticky Parkin 02:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As with most of the articles on the fetishes there appears to be an inconsistency over the meaning. It has been said before that anything may be subject to a fetish, but the inconsistency arises over the opinions on the degrees of significance. There are fetishes that are "mere fetishes" - a personal preference akin to a lifestyle choice, and then we have the notable fetishes that are defined by psychological literature, referenced to inanimate objects, and have notability as measured by its popularity within internet groups. From my experience of internet groups a "fetish" may refer to anything at the expense of the realisation that the declared thing of choice may actually be incidental to sexual pleasure, or used like a prop. It is when the object loses its incidental prop-ness that it truly becomes a fetish object. Consequently, I think the "penthouse" reference is probably using "fetish" in its "proppy" sense... use comparable with picking a setting and objects for a porn shoot (properties that are essentially incidental to the human subject). Redblueball (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2008 (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.