Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fetishes
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 keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of fetishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unencyclopedic, and topic more than adequately covered by sexual fetishism. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. Note the {{underconstruction}} tag and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncommon fetishes. The article is undergoing a merge. –Pomte 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per Pomte. This is a good-faith effort to fix a problem article, give it some time. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the {{underconstruction}} tag has been there for over 2 weeks and I don't think it qualifies as a reason to speedy close a deletion debate any longer. Two weeks is sufficient time to bring an article up to standards to at least survive a deletion debate. I'm still undecided as to whether that is the case - it's kind of late and I'm not sure what to think of it - so I'm abstaining from a !vote right now. However I felt that the claim the article is under construction as a reason to terminate the discussion early no longer holds water. Arkyan 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete and redir to article that better covers the topic (sexual fetishism). /Blaxthos 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncommon fetishes. Take that as you wish. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I maybe mistaken, but isn't it against the rules to put the article up for deletion if it just had a debate about 2(?) weeks ago?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the relevant parts of the deletion policy state: "A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion." Also, "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept." It's already been brought up in a comment by Arkyan that after the older AFD was closed, the "under construction" template has lingered on the page without much growth in the article. So no, it doesn't seem to be against policy to renominate so soon, but we are treading close to the edge on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have been trying to update and work on it, but lately I've been rather stressed out because of RL issues. I'm sorry if it doesn't grow super quick. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the relevant parts of the deletion policy state: "A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion." Also, "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept." It's already been brought up in a comment by Arkyan that after the older AFD was closed, the "under construction" template has lingered on the page without much growth in the article. So no, it doesn't seem to be against policy to renominate so soon, but we are treading close to the edge on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to sexual fetishism as mentioned above. I've given this a little bit of thought since my original comment, and while the hard work that has gone in to this particular list is appreciated, it appears that the topic is already well covered in the other article and there is no reason to duplicate. If there is any new information then merge it in, but otherwise just redirect it. Arkyan 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Arkyan. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no deadline to finishing articles and volunteer contributors on Wikipedia do have other obligations. Two weeks is really not that much time for such a big project. If the consensus is to redirect as a plausible search term, then please preserve the edit history so that this can be properly recreated and expanded in the future. -- Black Falcon 20:14, 19 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.