Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:03, 8 January 2006

Circumcision fetish

Circumcision fetish was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish.

No reliable sources for this article exist. Several users are attempting to get rid of it by redirecting it to sexual fetishism, which isn't really relevant, as the only mention of this is a link to this article. I'd rather delete it. Phroziac _. o º 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. original research. Jakew 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep since it fits in the large list of sexual fetishes. I see no valid reason why this article should be deleted and the others not. --Scandum 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The reason this one should be deleted is that, since there are no verifiable sources, as near as we can tell it is simply made up; note that one of the sources in the article is actually a letter by a[REDACTED] editors. This, it seems to me, egregiously violates the no original research guideline. Nandesuka 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 1. This article has already been voted for to be kept, 2. The vast amount of internet sites that describe a circumcision fetish make it certain it is not simply made up or Original Research. That there are no reliable sources (medical peer reviewed journals providing articles about circumcision fetish) is not reason to delete it, as few fetishes as described on Misplaced Pages would actually qualify under that standard. It would open a slippery slope that would legitimize removal of most if not all fetish articles and ultimately most if not all[REDACTED] articles. Dabljuh 15:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If there are a vast number of sites that describe circumcision fetishes, why isn't there even one circumcision fetish site cited in the article (as distinguished from some isolated quotes on political advocacy sites)? The slippery slope argument is odd. No one is proposing removing foot fetish, because foot fetishes aren't completely fabricated. In fact, it turns out that no reliable sources is, in fact, one of the best reasons to delete an article. That's because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a collection of things that people just made up. Nandesuka 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • For purposes of comparison, searching PubMed for foot fetish returns three articles: . Searching PubMed for 'circumcision fetish' returns none. Jakew 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that VFD/AFD discussions are not permanently binding. --Phroziac _. o º 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I googled up this story from a castration fetish site: which describes a fetish circumcision.

Following site is interesting as well and labels it as an amputation disorder.

Following article finds a majority of a group of women is sexualy aroused by the circumcised penis.

That's enough for an article. --Scandum 16:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The first is not an encyclopaedic source. The second is mildly interesting - and probably the closest to a suitable source yet suggested - but only mentions it in passing, failing to define it, and unfortunately does not specify who these 'many' are. The third makes no mention of fetishism, only a preference. Reinterpretation of the study's findings as such is an obvious case of original research. Jakew 16:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cock and ball torture Is'nt found on Pubmed either. Anyhow it is a widely accepted fetish / SM activity. The thing is, doctors tend not to investigate more naughty sexual stuff because they are soon labeled as perverts. Dabljuh 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it may not be on PubMed, but cock and ball torture is discussed in: King, C. Richard (1996) The Siren Scream of Telesex: Speech, Seduction and Simulation. Journal of Popular Culture 30 (3), 91-101. Also: Thorne, Adrian & Coupland, Justine (1998) Articulations of Same-sex Desire: Lesbian and Gay Male Dating Advertisements. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (2), 233-257. And finally: The Masters Manual: A Handbook of Erotic Dominance by Jack Rinella ISBN: 1881943038. Jakew 17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are no validated sources to even demonstrate that this fetish exists; while I'm sure that it does (since just about anything imaginable is a fetish for someone), Misplaced Pages accepts neither original research nor unreliable sources as the basis for an article. I'd speedy this except someone would no doubt have a fit; however, I am going to remove the reference to "circumcision fetish" from Sexual fetishism. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources. There is a fetish for just about everything, but 99% are not notable and only of interest to an extremly small audience. - D NN fetishcruft. --GraemeL 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. And please note that "original research" does not mean something that is made up, but instead it means innovative research. Misplaced Pages is not the place for this; the article should be a summary of the current research in the field, and not a research in itself. If there is no research in the field, there should be no article, no matter if the subject is real or not. JoaoRicardo 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...WP:NOR. KHM03 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Scandum. Stifle 00:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If, after the interminable discussions in the initial AfD and on the talk apge, these are the best references we can come up with, I'd hazard that they are the best there are. - brenneman 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously original research, and those defending the article still have not been able to come up with one single reference that meets Misplaced Pages's reliable sources requirements. Jayjg 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Del. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For consistancy, I must say: Please always explain your rational per Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. Thanks.
    brenneman 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)