| Revision as of 14:30, 18 September 2007 editCogswobble (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,286 edits →Pregnancy fetishism← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:23, 19 September 2007 edit undoHenrik Ebeltoft (talk | contribs)121 edits commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Comment''' It's a bit harsh to call it someones private sexual fetish, it is more wide spread than that, however the only respectable looking site I can find for it is from ] which discusses fetishism in general and pregnancy fetishism appears in the list of fetishes.] 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' It's a bit harsh to call it someones private sexual fetish, it is more wide spread than that, however the only respectable looking site I can find for it is from ] which discusses fetishism in general and pregnancy fetishism appears in the list of fetishes.] 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' No sources to assert notability. ]] 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' No sources to assert notability. ]] 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' bear in mind that there are also French, Russian, Portuguese and Japanese versions of this page, so the charge of being "someone's private sexual fetish" are clearly unjustified. (The French version does quote a book as a source, but it's apparently a translation.) Also note that there's quite a lot of articles linking to this one ], although most of them are about other types of fetishism, presumably even less notable than this one -- ], anyone? ] 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC) <small>Amazing, the stuff Misplaced Pages contains, you learn something new every day!</small> | |||
Revision as of 02:23, 19 September 2007
Pregnancy fetishism
- Pregnancy fetishism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable, non-existent topic. Unsourced since June 2006. No evidence of coverage in WP:RS, no evidence of notability. Valrith 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- A simple search of google proves its existence. This website makes reference to the fetish under "EROTIC LITERATURE MARKET" (denoted R). mattbuck 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep distasteful as it may seem this pornographic niche exists, there was a segment on it in Channel 4's "Pornography: The Secret History of Civilisation" for which there is a I haven't seen this book (not that I'd admit to it even if I had) so I can't add it as a source. KTo288 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the nomination, this falls under the category of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Burntsauce 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The relevant question is: can the article be referenced properly? Given the other linked pages in the box at the bottom of the page, I can't see how you keep this one out. It's certainly hard to find anything with a Google search, considering the topic. MarkBul 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- 'Keep not per other junk exists, but because it seems we have one good source listed above already.DGG (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to prove validity due to a lack of reliable sources including those discussed in this deletion debate. Someone's private sexual fetish may exist in their own mind, but be no more than original research and thus not qualified for an encyclopedia article. Note: women usually do not lactate during pregnancy, so there is also a lot of nonsense in the article, further qualifying it for deletion. Edison 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's a bit harsh to call it someones private sexual fetish, it is more wide spread than that, however the only respectable looking site I can find for it is this one from Psychology Today which discusses fetishism in general and pregnancy fetishism appears in the list of fetishes.KTo288 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No sources to assert notability. Cogswobbletalk 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment bear in mind that there are also French, Russian, Portuguese and Japanese versions of this page, so the charge of being "someone's private sexual fetish" are clearly unjustified. (The French version does quote a book as a source, but it's apparently a translation.) Also note that there's quite a lot of articles linking to this one ], although most of them are about other types of fetishism, presumably even less notable than this one -- Sneezing fetishism, anyone? Henrik Ebeltoft 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Amazing, the stuff Misplaced Pages contains, you learn something new every day!