Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial Fetishism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:44, 24 April 2014

Racial Fetishism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CONTENTFORK. User appears to have forked Ethnic_pornography#Racial_fetishism It also seems to be ripe with original research as well. as well as WP:SYNTH. Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject clearly goes well beyond pornography so complaining about a fork of Ethnic pornography is misplaced. The article references a range of sources about the article subject, many of which are about dating preferences and other topics that have nothing to do with pornography. Although sections might be considered original research, there's plenty of cited material and concerns can be fixed by editing/tagging: this is a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would look at the references, you would see that the majority of the sources are only tangentially related to the subject. For example, the original author cited an online dating study on race, which did not even mention fetishism. This is highly evident of WP:NOR, especially WP:SYN. Tutelary (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of reference coverage of concept. — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *'''Keep''' The subject clearly goes well beyond pornography so complaining about a fork of [[Ethnic pornography]] is misplaced. The article references a range of sources about the article subject, many of which are about dating preferences and other topics that have nothing to do with pornography. Although sections might be considered original research, there's plenty of cited material and concerns can be fixed by editing/tagging: this is a notable topic. --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 11:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 : If you would look at the references, you would see that the majority of the sources are only tangentially related to the subject. For example, the original author cited an online dating study on race, which did not even mention fetishism. This is highly evident of [[WP:NOR]], especially [[WP:SYN]]. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 12:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''', good deal of reference coverage of concept. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)