- 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. MelanieN ( talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Nu Fetish
- Nu Fetish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced neologism / porn quasi-genre fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Word-for-word taken from a Urban Dictionary definition, which was written in 2010. The term hasn't really picked up motion since. The sources are from 2011-2012. In addition I were left scratching my head trying to understand what exactly is supposed to be the fetish. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. That's true of the initial article and the remaining first paragraph. I went ahead and removed most of that text and left a copyvio warning on the article creator's page. Would be enough to speedy delete if a paragraph of original research hadn't also been added. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The remaining paragraph wasn't original research -- it was a near verbatim copy of material from one of the references (the deliciouslydeviant cite). It's been removed and there's pretty much nothing left but a short list of links. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MelanieN ( talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Nu Fetish
- Nu Fetish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced neologism / porn quasi-genre fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Word-for-word taken from a Urban Dictionary definition, which was written in 2010. The term hasn't really picked up motion since. The sources are from 2011-2012. In addition I were left scratching my head trying to understand what exactly is supposed to be the fetish. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. That's true of the initial article and the remaining first paragraph. I went ahead and removed most of that text and left a copyvio warning on the article creator's page. Would be enough to speedy delete if a paragraph of original research hadn't also been added. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The remaining paragraph wasn't original research -- it was a near verbatim copy of material from one of the references (the deliciouslydeviant cite). It's been removed and there's pretty much nothing left but a short list of links. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.