Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingernail fetish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few google hits on this from message boards or porn sites, but no reliable sources on this, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 00:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Onychophilia recieves a whopping 10 google hits. AdamBiswanger1 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Good grief tis a day for it. Much like its elastic counterpart fails WP:V - Glen 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Probably a little OR, too.--Kchase T 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yep, another nn fetish. - Bootstoots 02:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Fails WP:V per nom. 1,820 yhits. alphaChimp laudare 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per
hangnailnom VoiceOfReason 05:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete redirect to people who get off writing wikipedia articles about their obscure fetish fetish. --Xrblsnggt 06:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Michael 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable. MLA 08:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I guess every visible body part could be a fetish. We don't need articles on 'em all, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. This isn't unverifiable; it just lacks any currently verifiable, reliable sources. Unless some are provided though, it should be deleted. I would not oppose a redirect or merge to page(s) on fetishes, obscure or otherwise. Scorpiondollprincess 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete unless expanded with sources per Scorpiondollprincess. As it stands this is yet another sex fantasy article whose contribution to human knowledge is summed up in the title. The evolutionary psychology angle is interesting, but self-confessed speculation. Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn rootology (T) 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sexual fetishism instead of deleting the contentDoctor Bruno 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:V. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too obscure to be notable. -AED 16:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, totally obscure. RFerreira 19:24, 10 August 2006 (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.