This article was nominated for deletion on March 14, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The decusstion for the merging of the articles are on their talk pages, sorry for any confusion this may cause.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Merging all the "uncommon" fetish in to a single list is a very poor idea. Firstly it imposes a value judgments that a fetish is uncommon, and placing school girl in "uncommon" is a rather American perspective. I would suggest the author visit adultwork.co.uk and see how many women in the UK are selling pictures of themselves and escort services around "school girl uniform". If the fetish is common in the UK it seems to be even more so in Japan. Wikipedia must avoid the social prejudices of Americans.
Beyond that placing all the diversity of fetishes in a single list is impossible and restrictive, and simply restates the predominate discursive formation of our time that hetero sexuality using sexual organs is proper, and everything else must be classed in a category fetish. There are a massive number of fetishes in the world.
I fail to understand why someone can't just write an article listing all the fetishes they can think of with links to the wikipedia articles. This would expand the knowledge formation, give a central location for those wanting to see the fetishes categorized together without imposing the cultural heavy implications that placing them all in one group and deleting the group would mean.
Terrible idea, forget it. It actually is a perfect example of the abuse and misuse of Wikipedia, and creation of fictions that claim to be in the interest of, I don’t know fewer larger articles, rather than capturing the wild world of knowledge formation that actually is out there.Rhooker1236 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea to bring some of the short stubs to one place, but wouldn't a better name be simply Uncommon fetishes? The word list implies to me, well, a simple list with minimal description. Robotman1974 21:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree it would be good to combine articles into one, but I think "uncommon" is a bad idea - we're just going to have endless debates on whether fetish X is "common" or not (e.g., I'm not sure Schoolgirl uniform fetish should be considered uncommon). I think List of fetishes would be better. The point is, I presume, to merge articles where there is little content on their own page, and not because they are "uncommon". Mdwh 22:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For ease of discussion, here are all the articles we're talking about:
My two cents are that Shoe fetishism, Sock fetishism, Boot fetishism, and Fetish footwear should be combined into one article on footwear fetishisms; Schoolgirl uniform fetish should stay separate; the remaining stubs should be divided between fetishes about otherwise regular articles of clothing (Jacket fetishism, Jeans fetishism, Stocking fetishism, Panty fetishism, Glove fetishism, Glasses fetishism) and everything else (Spandex fetishism, Fur fetishism, Mask fetishism, Gas mask fetishism, Fruit fetishism, Foreskin fetish). bd2412 T 04:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you just write an article about fetishes in general, and link to all of these fetishes. Combining them in one place will make a massive article which will impose a catagorisation that they are all the same, but having a hub for them to spoke out of is a good idea for finability.
Good wikipedia should give voices to knowledge formation not included in offical encyclopedias (we can all buy them) while still promoting finability and discoverability. A single article gains for finability while damaging respect to each as a unique sexual idenity or practice.
Why not use List of fetishes? The common fetishes can be included with a short description and ((main)) to point to their individual articles; the less common ones can be transformed into list entries. That way, there's no need to segregate "common" and "uncommon" fetishes. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As many, many people have noted, the name sucks, so i'm moving it to List of fetishes. I hope this is more agreeable with everyone.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've merged to articles today, but I'm not really sure I should merge some of the other articles; Although no one has replied to the message on the articles themselves, I think we should focus on merging just the stubs for now.
If someone could please help rewrite these articles, I'm rather horrible at rewriting myself. Also, If you feel an article which I've put up but not merged should be merged, feel free to do so.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the original research tag, a couple sources are cited, but it's not clear what they're meant to support, and quite a bit of this article's content appears to be personal knowledge. If the listed references really do support all of the content, inline citations might be a lot clearer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Taking deletion off the table, what about a merge with Sexual fetishism? We seemed to have a decent showing on that one in the recent AFD debate, so it seems worth a mention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm merging and redirecting all the different garment fetish articles that cannot support their own articles into a "Garment fetishes" article. This will take a huge amount of work away from this list as half of the unsourced and/or original research fetish articles we have are garment related. Check out the (very, very) early build of the article in my sand box. My hope is that with some basic sourcing for the simple overarching concept of "Garment fetishs" established we can find a source or two for each different type.
As it stands now I'm hoping for two opr three sourced paragraphs in the intro and then one source for each entry. The thing is I'm going to need alot of help and everyone here seems interested in cleaning this section of wikipedia up. Please tell me your thoughts and if anyone is inclined to help that would be great! NeoFreak 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm . . . anybody see any sources on this one?