Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towel fetish


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Towel fetish
Article itself states "towel fetish is an unheard of concept" so I will venture to say "non-notable, delete". &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  09:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't an issue. The subject matter is, according to the article at any rate (it effectively stating outright that there are no sources on the subject), unverifiable.  And, unless one counts the occasional critique of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie (such as this or this) or web sites about someone's dog as sources about towel fetishism, that does indeed appear to be the case.  Delete. Uncle G 10:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Guys, I really am new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is the improper way/place to put forward my thoughts. Why is this article taken for deletion? The editor, by stating that "towel fetish is an unheard of concept" is being honest. The feelings may have been his/her own, or his own fetish. So what there's nothing to justify it? I doubt if the first article published on 'Erotic Bondage' had anyone to justify it also! And neither is this sexually explicit material he has written - at least not compared to the stuff we have on Wikipedia!! Come on. I'd ask you to give the guy a chance. -John.
 * If there's "nothing to justify it", it does not belong here. Everything here is required to be verifiable.  We aren't in the business of taking Wikipedia editors solely at their words.  We have no reason to believe that  is "being honest", just as you have no reason to believe that I am being honest.  This is why we cite sources, providing editors with the independent means to check the articles that we are writing.  If there is no means for checking an article, because there are no sources to be cited (and this article pretty much says that there aren't), then the article is unacceptable here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  If Crazyideas wants to announce to the world a new concept of towel fetishism, based upon firsthand personal testimony, then that is primary source material, which must be peer reviewed, fact checked, critiqued, and published elsewhere. If you or anyone else want to convince those of us who think that the article should be deleted that the article should be kept, you can easily change our minds by the simple expedient of citing some reliable sources for the subject matter of the article, demonstrating that it is verifiable and not original research.  This is a discussion, and people's decisions are not set in stone.  But that is the only way to satisfy the objections to the article that we have.  Uncle G 15:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. In response to John, if there is something called a "towel fetish," that there is no internet activity surrounding this tells us that the practice is not widespread and is not particularly noteworthy.  All sorts of conduct is the subject of one sexually fetish or another, but an article requires some minimal amount of practice or else it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  In this instance, unlike erotic bondage the article itself note that there are no websites that deal with the practice.  And it doesn't take too large of an audience to support some web activity and this leads me to believe the practice is microscopic at best.  Jtmichcock 13:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone else did a Google search for "towel fetish". Delete, of course. --Last Malthusian 13:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. ...but mark for cleanup and link from somewhere. As frightening as it may be, Google does turn up a few hits referring to people having a towel fetish.  Might as well let the information collect somewhere.  Regarding websites, there are many fetishes out there and not everyone has to have a dedicated site. --StuffOfInterest 14:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I gave three of them above. Not one of them is a source that can be used to create an article.  Counting Google Web hits is not enough.  It isn't research.  Research requires that one actually read what Google turns up.  If you found something using a Google Web search that can actually be used as a reliable source to construct a verifiable article, please tell us what it is.  Otherwise, you have not shown that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 14:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have to agree with the above, Google hits alone are insufficient unless you find links for the specific topic of the article. Towel and fetish are likely to come up often on a search since, well, fetishes are almost always messy.  Jtmichcock 16:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Original research. &mdash; RJH 16:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: As RJHall says, it's original research. A paraphilia about the security blanket and infantile regression with a towel isn't altogether shocking, but the concept is not discussed in the literature.  Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, it is not appropriate to report upon a single person's findings here. Geogre 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research (while I fondle this wonderful soft terrycloth...) Durova 19:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per StuffOfInterest. The fact that we don't approve of something is irrelevant. Zordrac 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. If User:StuffOfInterest rewrites the article using verifiable sources, then I will reconsider.  But as the article stands it violates more than one of Wikipedia's most fundamental principles.  Chick Bowen 04:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per StuffOfInterest. Stifle 22:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * delete NN paraphilia, sub-encyclopedic Pete.Hurd 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless someone can verify that there is a towel fetish subculture, and that it's large enough to be notable among fetish circles, which I somehow doubt. Seriously, a towel fetish? - Hahnchen 05:24, 7 December 2005 (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.