Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sneezing 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sneezing fetishism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Has anyone ever heard of sneezing fetish? The article does not cite any source to assert its notability or to confirm that such thing exists. This may be a joke that has gone unnoticed for months. миражinred 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. A google search reveals a smattering of anecdotes and random stories, but absolutely nothing resembling a reliable source. No notability or verifiability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, unverifiable, as funny as it sounds... • 97198   talk  07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does provide a reference to a reliable source confirm that such a thing exists as one can readily see by reading it.  And the reference checks out.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does indeed. I've found several books and papers that cite it.  One, de Silva  is mentioned on the talk page.  The problem is that the report by King is a report on a single case, a single person.  So it's impossible to support an article that discusses "sneezing fetishists", plural, what "most sneezing fetishists" do, and what "they" are, as this article does.  No sources actually generalize from this single case.   We can reliably say that one person has a fetish for sneezes, just as de Silva does.  We cannot reliably say anything about more than one person.  The sources don't.  Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As is well known, the wikipedia is not a list of all things that are true, and a single source does not make something notable. Yes this is "True" read the forums, there are thousands of posts, which I dont think we can credibly call a joke.  But that is not the point, a few hundred people with phpBB does not make an encyclopaedic entry. 82.43.171.222 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is to be kept, then the assertions made in the article should be properly referenced, not just to show that the fetish exists, but that this is a reasonable description of it. I can show you good citable evidence of the palnet Mars, that does not entitle me to write about the men who live there. 82.43.171.222 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, everything is a fetish to someone. Sole source on page is primary, a report by a shrink on a case study. We would need secondary sources to establish notability for a fetish. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the ref is Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy? One mention in a journal hardly makes this notability. As previously mentioned, everything is a fetish to someone (that would be an interesting person to meet, that person to whom everything is a fetish. Actually, I think I will pass on the meet.) Fingernail fetish is probably more common. --Alfadog (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all nonsensical made-up fetishes and paraphilias. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While Google throws up a few apparent sources backing the term, there is probably a fetish for everything. Next we'll be hearing of a sex fetish for people who get turned on by sex...! Whitstable (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge the citation to another article. Probably fails WP:N as a standalone topic per precedents like spitting fetishism.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Read the talk page, people have been talking about the need for citations, and the probability that it should be deleted for at least a year. The only support it ever receives is from the fetishists say Hey guys this is for real, come look at my forum.  The article is an opinion piece probably constituting original research, pretty much uncited, lacking in clear notability.  Even when external links to forums were provided, the assertions made are were not referenced to clear posts even on the forms.   A seriously bad article. 82.43.171.222 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * delete I have no issues with recreation is reliable sources are provided beyond the minor mentions we have here but for now there isn't enough for an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 31 December 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.