Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflatophilia

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.

Inflatophilia

Non-notable neologism. All the ghits shown in google search are non-RS. No hint in google books [1]. Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deflate, I mean, Delete as an unsourced neologism. Sounds fun, though... (Tell me I didn't just say that.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ! Erring towards Delete - per nom Francium12 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does it cite references and reliable references are not available but the definition given here doesn't match up with ones elsewhere on the net. Apparently, there are so many ways to think of things like this... Munci (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No I've changed my mind having investigated some of the darker corners of the internet. Had better clear the history :=) I now believe that there are people whom are actually in to this. Whereas Inflatophilia only has a few hits on google, Inflation fetish has some 25,000. Needs to be referenced though Francium12 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Inflation fetish and Inflatophilia are not same term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - Well if you're such as expert ;-) would you mind explaining the difference as inflation fetish is clearly notable based upon google hits Francium12 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're such as expert ;-) would you mind explaining the difference between Breast expansion fetishism and Boobphilia? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in this form. It's a genuine term but I've never heard it used in this sense; it refers to a sexual attraction to inflatable objects, not to being inflated. — iridescent 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be entirely original research. If kept the title should be changed to something more generalized. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have since found there have been versions of Inflatable fetishism, Balloon fetishism and Inflation fetishism already deleted multiple times. Munci (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I believe that google doesn’t quite understand the difference between inflatophillia and inflation fetish itself. But I can’t help thinking that this is simply for systemic bias in VfD if this was to be deleted. If google is anything to go by it seems there are people actually into this stuff so can anyone explain how this can fail on notability?

As I understand it inflatophillia is an odd fetish which involves using inflatable objects as parahillia. Think latex balloons and the like.

There is also a different fetish which seems to be about inflated women which I would term body inflation fetish. As one could imagine it seems to exist more in comics and art than in the real world as that would be rather dangerous(http://humanballooncd2005.tripod.com/) Anyone can check out this link and several others on the Internet to see that such a thing does actually exist.

I think all such terms are used rather interchangeably. Inflation fetishism and expansion fetishism seem to be similar terms. Maybe an article called expansion fetishism could group them all together if only so I could amusingly add an expand tag Francium12 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Keep proponents are missing a trick. Meeting the standard of WP:NEO has nothing to do with whether this paraphilia exists. It has to do with whether it is widely known under this name. With 83 Google hits, no reliable sources discernable or included in the article, and the hits being exclusively to Wiki mirrors and bulletin boards, it demonstrably isn't. RGTraynor 12:47, 7 May 2008 (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.