Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual 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 Speedy keep This article does not give a correct and true overall definition of sexual fetishism as it exists in today's world. A reboot (deletion and re-creation) is proposed if appropriate edits are not undertaken by Sexual Science Professionals within a reasonable timeframe. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The notability of the topic is painfully obvious.
 * 2) Though perhaps not entirely free of original research, some content in the article is supported by WP:RS.
 * 3) The article appears to be a reasonable attempt to neutrally treat the subject (it would be possible to start an article on a notable topic as an extremely biased advocacy essay; such material could possibly be deleted, rather than leaving the essay up until someone replaced it with an acceptable article.)
 * 4) The nomination for deletion is not supported by any policy or guideline.
 * 5) The nomination itself is defective (it was never listed at AfD.) Had the nomination actually been added to Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 29, the consensus for keeping the article would be overwhelming.
 * 6) Because of the above, there's no reason to leave an ugly gray box on the article for an entire week, so
 * 7) I am improving the encyclopedia by closing this now. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. At 4300 words, it's not a small article, although anything of a sexual nature is likely to offed some people. I'm not sure what is "correct and true" as anything that true for one couple may well not be for another. It makes a few questionable observations, e.g, "The sexual acts involving fetishes are characteristically depersonalized and objectified, even when they involve a partner," which sounds like 1970s feminist comment. (Now that I check the reference for that comment, the ref doesn't say that at all!) Overall, worth keeping.


 * Keep. No clear reason for a reboot has been made. What the article lacks in a "true overall definition of sexual fetishism as it exists in today's world" can be added if it is encyclopedic and sourced without completely removing the content that is already there. If the emphasis or ordering of the article is biased or in someway a problem that to can be addressed by edits rather than this proposed reboot. The fact that an editor doesn't find the article as it is to his personal liking is not an adequate reason to do a complete "reboot". Tjc (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2010 (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.