- 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 nomination was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell if this is a genuine foot fedish page or not. Creator removed first deletion template, claiming this was a legitimate area of interest. There are a few hits on Google but I can't tell whether they are just semi-porno girls and cars, or whether there is some level of foot fedish as legit concern. KarenAnn 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. There _is_ this site. I don't know - and I don't really want to know - if there are many more like it out there, but, as a fetish, it does exist. Tevildo 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are, in fact, quite a few sites dedicated to this fetish. Some of these sites were originally referenced in the article, but were later removed by overzealous editors who believe that any link to a pay site must be spam. We have articles here on some far more obscure paraphilias, and this is certainly not a hoax, as you claimed in your first attempt to delete the page. Also, your first deletion template was not removed by the article creator; you used the Proposed Deletion template, which I correctly removed. Kindly familiarize yourself with the process of deletion before making such accusations. Owen× ☎ 02:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I apologize to you if you took anything I did as an accusation. I didn't mean it that way -- I was not meaning to criticize either you or the creator for any of your actions. I was genuinely curious and Tevildo's reply (above) was most helpful. As I said originally, I could not tell and wanted some feedback. KarenAnn 11:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem; sorry if I came across as too harsh. Articles dealing with paraphilias often come under attack from people who consider the activity described as reprehensible, or have other moral objections to it. Considering that many of these paraphilias are practiced by thousands (and in some cases millions) of people, I think they deserve a WP entry at least as much as, say, each of the 386 Pokémon characters. Owen× ☎ 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I apologize to you if you took anything I did as an accusation. I didn't mean it that way -- I was not meaning to criticize either you or the creator for any of your actions. I was genuinely curious and Tevildo's reply (above) was most helpful. As I said originally, I could not tell and wanted some feedback. KarenAnn 11:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Article is totally unverifable and violation of Wikipedia is not a place for orignal research. Storm05 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With the caveat that external links should not pose as advertising for commercial sites in relation to the article. --Brad101 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the key point is that the article is unsourced and not verifiable. It also appears to be a peg on which to hang some commercial sites.
- 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.