Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semen 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.  Nish kid 64  22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Semen fetishism

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Prod removed without comment. Unsourced, unverifiable neologism. No sources provided for anything in the article at all. Fan-1967 01:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep condense and/or rewrite article to include only verifiable referenced information. Semen Feishism exists, sources can be found. If nessacary stub the article down to barely more than a dicdef for the time being. Delete the article after it's been tagged for help, but not before. The content of a notable article should be debated on the Talk page, not on an AfD. wtfunkymonkey 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment An AFD nomination is not a debate on the content. Sources have not been provided to demonstrate it's a notable topic or term, and only source author has provided (per Talk page) is the Wikipedia article Bukkake. Fan-1967 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Most of the article, in fact, seems to have been forked from Bukkake. Perhaps if this were titled "Bukkake variations" or "Styles of Bukkake" it might be more appropriate? The title is not sourced from anywhere. Fan-1967 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep moderately repusive, but nevertheless an existing practice and an existing term.--Anthony.bradbury 01:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are in the articles linked to from this one. Obviously they can be duplicated in this article if need be, but once that is done, there would be no argument for deletion. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, can you please point to the sources for it? Not for the endless variations of bukkake porn. Where is the source to document a paraphilia called "semen fetishism"? Fan-1967 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and a complete rewrite with sources cited. Such things exists but all we need to do is to find sources. Whatever nonsense is there in the article, do not add it into the rewritten content. An expansion of this article will make it look much, much better. Terence Ong 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ... [A]ny reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". "I've spotted some trends in the pornography I watch, I think I'll give them names'" is most definitely not the basis for an article. WP:V and WP:OR both apply here and both are non-negotiable. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per other articles of this fashion. Alex43223Talk 08:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources. Gazpacho 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As silly as it sounds, well you get the idea... -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or source properly Alf photoman 14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Bukkake, per the above. No evidence that this is a distinct topic. Tevildo 16:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, and not sufficiently differentiated from Bukkake. Squeezeweasel 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no unique content in this article. It is all just duplication of content from other articles. I did a Google search, and going through the first two pages of results it appears "semen fetishism" is used exclusively as a synonym for "felching", with no unique meaning. Possible redirect to felching based on those results.  Lyrl  Talk C 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this could be the basis of a viable article. However, in this form, it is pretty much beyond hope. Delete and recreate in a properly formed and sourced manner.-- danntm T C 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, we can't keep an article because the subject "seems to exist."-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 22:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DAFT. Unreferenced, and BTW, there can't be any "semen fetish" because fetishes are technically centred on a non-sexual object. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, since this seems to be created from original research rather than reference to good sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per CandianCaesar. Also, the entire article except for about 5 words have main articles. (all sections have main article). --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertion that semen fetishism itself is notable. Every fetish does not deserve an article. Also it adds nothing to the articles which form the backbone of its sections. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Bukkake if ref sources are found, Delete as original research if not. --Eqdoktor 08:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not "unsourced" because others voting to 'delete' point out that most sections have their own article (which needs to be sourced). The article at hand is to be compared with 'List of...' and other overview articles. The separate topics are clearly related but the relationship cannot neatly be expressed in each main article (each would then require 'see also' links to all others, whereas now a single 'see also' link suffices). Neither can it be merged because none of the more specific articles has a wide enough scope for all others. Any unsourced section not referring to its main article, simply requires being tagged as such, allowing to improve it or after a while remove only that section. If as has been pointed out, the name of the article could be considered improper (technically not fetishism, or not a coined term, term as OR), the title of the article needs to be improved. Though some 'delete' voters have made ostentatively clear not to fully appreciate the topic ("Every fetish does not deserve an article", "As silly as it sounds, well you get the idea... AAA", "DAFT"), that is no excuse to apply WP standards more lightheartedly or eagerly. — SomeHuman 15 Jan2007 10:14 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the issue with this article. The question is whether those articles can all be linked together by semen fetishism, which is not an editorial decision. It requires a reliable source to be found which states that there is a notable fetish called "semen fetishism" and/or that the acts described in it are forms of semen fetishism. One cannot just presume that those who engage in these acts are semen fetishists (which would be a judgment by editors), there must be a source for such a claim. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 10:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, the article may need renaming if the topics can technically not be considered fetishism, but here it is incorrectly up as Afd. The second part of your own vote comment was false: every true fetishism may well have its article. — SomeHuman 15 Jan2007 13:33 (UTC)
 * Comment Re: "Neither can it be merged because none of the more specific articles has a wide enough scope for all others." I'm a little confused by this one. The vast majority of this article is descriptions of variations on Bukkake and was forked from that article. Can you offer a reason why that material shouldn't be just put back where it came from? Fan-1967 14:39, 15 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.