Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedal pumping (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Pedal pumping
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am alarmed by the extremely poor quality of this article, and the fact that a previous discussion as long ago as 2006 highlighted its fundamentally unencyclopedic nature and the various issues with it, which have not yet been fixed. As it stands, there are egregious violations of some or all of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CITE, and possibly WP:NPOV, and the tone of the language used is inappropriately chatty/informal for an encyclopedia article. The fact that roughly nothing has been done to address these issues in 16 years is quite concerning. At a bare minimum, it needs a complete rewrite with proper sourcing; I'd propose that it's deleted in its current form, and any information worth keeping can simply be moved to a dedicated subsection on foot fetishism. Yes, many other articles on fetishes exist, but this does not mean that every fetish needs to have its own article – not least because there is significant overlap between the details of individual fetishes and the membership of the communities of people who practice them. Some are so obscure there is little point in documenting them, at least as distinct from other more common fetishes. I once spoke to a guy on Grindr who had a highly specific fetish for synthetic fleeces – do we need an article for that too? Archon 2488 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and not transcluded to the log until now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 02:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I couldn't find any RS for this, nor do I care to venture down this rabbit hole. Just do a Google search yourself, but be warned, it's getting weird. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. The Independent source is reasonable, but is not independent from the Daily Beast source. Unable to find anything in journal sources, which would confer legitimacy to it as a notable or otherwise-encyclopedic fetish, rather than merely one of the cornucopia of fetishes found in the depths of the interwebs. Clears search history Ovinus (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I should also clear my search history. The one time I'll get in trouble for using wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete orphaned, unlinked, unsectioned, draft-quality mess with not even bare minimum notability provided. I didn’t look for sources because it’s already been done by others and there’s nothing here to salvage per wp:tnt Dronebogus (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Poorly written, fails WP:GNG Fifthapril (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete lacking GNG based on my searches. Re nom: Foot fetishism would be an OK redirect target (attested to in ), though there's at least one source that mentions it in the context of mechanophilia, so my preference is to delete without redirecting. Urve (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2022 (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.