Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoking 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. The problematic components of this entry should addressed through normal editorial process, outside of AfD. El_C 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Smoking fetishism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

uncontested prod, but some editors think that these sort of articles merit keeping, so I'll bring it here rather than just delete as expired prod; Note: the German WP has an article on this, and given our Monicagate on this side of the pond, I'll take no position, but we should discuss it. Carlossuarez46 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but probably clean up to remove OR. A cursory Google Scholar search lists 9 articles, including a couple by the British Medical Journal, that mention it (albeit usually in the context of a larger article, particularly on various forms of online cigarette advertising), and Google News  shows some more promising articles on the subject, including at least one from the Boston Phoenix and a couple on Salon that cover the subject in some detail. I can't access the articles myself right now, but as far as I can tell they're valid sources for a decent article. Confusing Manifestation 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Confusing Manifestation.--Danaman5 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, well-known fetish. Could be stubbed since much of it is unconfirmed original research and inherently speculative, but this is a fetish about which some documentation exists sufficient to pass WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but man, oh, man prune the heck out of that. I'll just note that the book The Pin-Up by Mark Gabor, link here, specifically discusses this along with an image of a model smoking.  --Haemo 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a well known sexual fetish and even the nominator has given no reason for deletion. Nick mallory 06:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The prod's reason was original research; rather than make a unilateral decision, I decided to bring it here as a procedural matter, I still have no real opinion whether it's kept, is it WP:SNOWing? I won't close a nom I initiated, but it seems like it'll be kept in some fashion. Carlossuarez46 06:18, 30 July 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.