Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insertion fantasy

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, and welcome a project to merge all the fetish stubs into one list. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:29Z

Insertion fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A so called fetish about, believe it or not, insertion. Totally original research. The article was proded with (paraphrased) "Original research that just makes the title into a sentence". This is already covered in sexual intercourse. Redundant and I'm not seeing any sources emerging that don't just directly deal with sexual intercourse as a general topic. The endless subclassification of fetish articles pretty much reaches its zenith here. NeoFreak 00:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no context, as well as not sourced. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely pointless (since this is just sexual intercourse) and completely unverifiable. --N Shar 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find a single mention of this, other than Wikipedia mirrors. If this is a real fetish, every heterosexual woman in the world has it. --Djrobgordon 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundancy. Wooyi 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hysterically redundant "fetish". I should make articles outlining "sexual genitalia fetishes". I mean, they're pretty widespread, eh? --Haemo 05:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No pun intended on hysterical fetishes of the pelvic region? See List of medical roots under H But seriously, delete it. --Selket ^Talk 06:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hold on, this it would appear is not completely made up. Google search gives over 27 thousand results. Future votes might want to skim through that to see if sources exist. Mathmo ^Talk 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- This "insertion fantasy" fetish seems to be legit, involving inserting objects inside oneself, and is apparently related to unbirthing, voreaphilia/macrophilia etc.[1] so I'd imagine this isn't as broad a fetish as previously described in this AfD. It just needs expansion and some sources-K@ngie^meep! 10:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some more info on this fetish (unfortunately not safe for work[2]). I also just added the links to the article as sources-K@ngie^meep! 10:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for a made up fetish that "sort of relates" to topics that we already have articles on and that can't even provide reliable sources for themselves. I can check NSFW sources here but by the looks of it it doesn't seem to meet the crteria needed to be counted as a reliable source. Also the term "Insertion Fantasy" will not return contexual or accurate results in google ehich isn't a indicator of notability anyway. NeoFreak 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NeoFreak. Inkpaduta 15:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No relevant context, sure wikipedia is not censored is not censored for minors but this is just a silly article.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's occurred to me that rather then deleting a lot of these 'fetishes' that they should be merged into sections of a larger article, such as Uncommon Fetishes (or some title therefore of). This will delete the articles, while allowing what little information there is to be kept; it also means sections of fetishes that 'do' turn out to be 'fake' can be more easlly removed, with out ten thousand AfDs--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I thought of the same thing. I am putting together a list (bottom of the page) of the fetish and paraphilia articels that deal with garments or clothing of somesort and don't have the references or notability to stand on their own. I'm planning on putting them all into a "Garment fetishes" article with redirects. NeoFreak 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete relevance unknown--Sefringle 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.