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 no consensus. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaphilia[edit]

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

This page has gone unreferenced since I called for valid references in January of 2006. Wikipedia requires that all articles be reference-able by published sources, not self published ones. So documentation by self published online "aquaphile journals" are okay external links but do not factor into the deletion for this article. My question is this: is there a published, valid source that can verify the use of the term "aquaphilia" as it is used on this page. I understand that this is a somewhat popular fetish, but attributability by published sources is policy on wikipedia, not guideline. In my own search using lexisnexis, Jstor and Google Scholar, I have found that there are scholarly articles related to aquatic erotica, but they never call it aquaphilia and have not termed it a sexual fetish, the information on the page is related to attributable things, but is itself unattributable to published source. Lotusduck 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Have you read the articles and confirmed they don't use the term, or is it only that you did not find it in the title or perhaps abstract? I ask not as criticism, but so as to know where next to look.DGG 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did full text searches for aquaphilia in journals, newspapers, books, and after quite a lot of time wasted I didn't find any articles that used aquaphilia to refer to anything sexual. The articles in the external links to the wikipedia article use the term, but are self published web journals, and not acceptable as references for wikipedia under policy. Lotusduck 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This material is significant, there are web sites, there are discussions. The sources may not be the conventional ones used in WP, but the fact that we cannot write an article about something we know to be significant without adjusting the rule here a little should cause us to adjust the rule. The established web journals in the field are bviously published by those involved in the fetish, but this does not necessarily make them unreliable. "Self-published" is probably not applicable in this case-- I do not see how material about a subject can be literally "self-published" as distinct from the usual meaning for material about and by a person. Biologists publish web journals on biology, etc...DGG 10:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the wikipedia policy on attribution. Your statements are against policy. Self published also typically means "published not by recognized respectable sources" not your definition. Self published almost never means "autobiographical."Lotusduck 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Term is used in newspaper article: Jury: Law firm must pay in sex suit--Charles haynes 10:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Welcome to wikipedia. You have only two edits to your name including this one, perhaps you should spend more time editing articles before you go on AFD, or try re-writing the aquaphilia article to fit the sentence regarding aquaphilia in that article.Lotusduck 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how this brief mention of bathtub swimsuit photos as aquaphilia would change your vote from delete, but now how it would change it to keep. If only one published source mentions it and only incidentally, a full article cannot be built of it. A merge is acceptable, but to where?

That article is a primary source, and wikipedia articles require some secondary sources. Even if it were an analytical writing, the coverage of the topic is too incidental to prove notability. From wikipedia's notability guideline: "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Therefore a book or a journal actually discussing aquaphilia that is published by outside sources would make this notable. Lotusduck 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a guideline, not a policy, and is subject to common sense. So, what does your common sense say, can we fully attribute a complete article to a single sentence about someone's prosecution?Lotusduck 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• names In general,Primary literary or other media sources are sufficient to document a name for a type of behavior,and to document that this behavior is something which people either do or fantasize about. They by themsselves justify an article if the behavior is worth the description. For behavior with no established name but where a name has been reported in a single source, we can use it; if the ultimate name should change, the articles can be edited accordingly. Commonly used names can change no matter how many sources there might be.
  • The web journals report the fantasies of the authors, and are for this purposes as reliable as if in a more conventional medium. They would not be reliable to establish that some particular person had engaged in a particular form of behavior, but they are, to establish that it is something humans think about.

Recall that truth is not a wikipedia policy, attribution is, and attribution is defined as to published sources. Proving that something is thought about by humans is also not a factor in the notability guideline.Lotusduck 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The newspaper article reports on a lawsuit, and is therefore a secondary source, and a prima fascia reliable one. WP accepts newspaper accounts, and such documentation has been used throughout WP. It is sufficient to establish the name. To call a newspaper report of a lawsuit a primary source is a novel suggestion indeed and should first be discussed on the suitable policy page.

"A secondary source is an study written by a scholar about a topic." This article does not analyze or synthesize anything, and if we are to treat it as a secondary source "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

It seems like you are endorsing using forums and self published websites for sources. If so it is you that needs to take your arguments to the attribution policy talk page. There is serious question to notability. As for using self published sources, the definition of a neologism is always contentious, and an article must not be based primarily on unreliable sources. Nobody has shown any other sources from which anyone could really base this article on. Lotusduck 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally and in every way fails the fundemental policy of attribution. Of course this might change with the introduction of reliable sources aso can then try to establish notability. The "sources" being provided now do not meet the requirements of reliable sources on wikipwdia. NeoFreak 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources and per WP:NEO. I found a source that uses the term "aquaphilia" in relation to a person's liklihood to enjoy whitewater rafting.[1] Neologisms can mean different things to different people and that's one of the reasons why articles about neologisms should be avoided.--Kubigula (talk) 19:39, 16 March 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.