Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectùm-sexuality


 * 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 to delete - will redirect the first term to Objectum sexual, as the content is duplicated, but the second is better formatted. Any further renaming discussion can be done subsequently. Neıl 龱  10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Objectùm-sexuality

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

A kooky pop-science neologism that someone coined to describe her marriage to the Berlin Wall. This doesn't look to be more than a random curiosity. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. There is a great article on the German Wikipedia adressing the topic of Objectùm-sexuality Objecktophil and I am trying to share this information in English. I am unfamiliar with the guidelines but do not wish to see this article deleted as Objectùm-sexuality is becoming increasingly prevelent in the media in recent days. I would like to see an authoritive definition that may help alleviate the confusion OS is getting on the internet. Berliner Mauer (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Comment I did a little research when this article first appeared, and it appears (as little as I know about this and related subjects) a bona fide item, although it appears the correct title should be objectaphilia. OTOH it is little more than a "trivia" article at the moment. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC) ~I agree with the above, definitely notable following recent publications. Thedreamdied (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You might want to check out Objectum sexual as well. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added. JuJube (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if the subject is not adequately covered in other sexuality related articles than the information should be Merged specifically to something around "philias" I think. "Object Fetishism/Sexuality" is being covered by a program in the UK at the moment on Channel 4 or 5 (I can't remember which) so there is some claim for notability and the topic should be covered in someway. I'm not convinced that both the nominated articles need to exist as separate entities though and one could easily be a redirect to the other (or to a more appropriate page which discusses the topic). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge Definitely notable with reliable references (The Independent). One "official" spelling should be decided upon, the articles merged and one redirected to the other. ~ Ameliorate U T @ 12:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now and merge together, possibly redirect or merge with another article. The concept is notable, but more should be done to describe the meaning and importance of this particular term. Consider relation to Sexual Fetishism, and possible redirect / merge with that page. Danski14(talk) 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the variants together, possibly under a different title. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepSeems notable, but the different versions of the article need merging together. Further merging might help put the term in context. We  really need separate articles for things when there is enough material to justify this, but we should only be deleting all reference when they're not notable. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now . This paraphilia has received quite a lot of media attention, including IIRC a Sky documentary. I'm not sure whether this is genuine or an elaborate hoax though. I haven't come across any mention of this in medical and psychological literature. A  ecis Brievenbus 22:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to delete for now. If there is no indication that it has been mentioned in scientific literature, there is no indication that it's a genuine paraphilia, and if it's no genuine paraphilia we shouldn't be writing about it. Simply being written about in the media is not enough, as just about every single article about objectum sexuality is in the quirkies section. If there is no verifiable proof that this is genuine we should err on the side of caution and delete this article. A  ecis Brievenbus 22:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all, made up by a performance artist. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:MADEUP --Wiendietry (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Objectum sexual. Call it kooky, call it a scam, but I found         signs that the topic is notable. -- jonny - m  t  15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- whether or not this is a "scientific disorder," it's still a term used in the media. Therefore, a definition should be available.  If it turns out to be a scam, then include a section that states that it's a scam.  Also, as far as it not being scientifically verified--how do you think things become that way?  I'm a psychology student, and all we do is work to verify.  But no one is going to do that research until it gathers attention.  Also, whether or not this is a hoax isn't up to someone with no psychological experience to decide, as I expect the person who marked this article for deletion to be.  Those fighting for the article's deletion are more than likely ignorant to psychological disorders in general.  Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it a "hoax."  Objectum sexual is no stranger than a shoe fetish, and fetishism has been recognized by the APA for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnshadows (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 June 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.