Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armpit fetishism

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armpit fetishism

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

No reliable sources, can not verifiable nor can notability be established. Suggest merge with sexual fetishism, if reliable sources can be found. Stillwaterising (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: does not meet WP:GNG or WP:V guidelines. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't help but notice that in your editing this article you removed an image which, iirc, you argued for deletion of on Commons, and which one reason why I denied said deletion was due to it being in use. As someone who does find armpits sexy, I am biased, but I believe this fetish is notable - just as notable and common as a myriad other fetishes we have articles for. I think references can be found, there are certainly a fair few fetish videos on this subject, although there is some overlap with the hirsute fetish. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "Fetishism" would seem to cover it, would it not? Carrite (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be improved - basically, it needs to be written, there isn't really much there. However, I feel confidant that this likely is a real fetish and the material is out there. If the subject is notable, even the fact that the article is (currently) poor is not (generally) a reason for deletion. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep google book search shows about 300 mentions, many of them significant. I agree it just needs to be expanded from a stub. subject is clearly notable. as an example, i have no doubt that voluminous literature exists showing that shaved armpits in women in western culture amounts to a form of fetishism. The fact that body scent is highly concentrated there, and that traditionally, scent is one of the most powerful attractants, actually points to this being probably one of the most "rational" fetishes one can imagine. Yukio Mishimas use of the fetish has been written about in a psychoanalytic journal, [[1]], though we cant link to it as its behind a subscription wall, its a good example (found using google scholar).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked for sources before I started this Afd. I found numerous photo galleries, but nothing that would qualify under reliable source guidelines. It is irresponsible as an encyclopedia to present information without any supporting documentation. This topic needs to be developed within the time frame of this Afd or relevant information can be merged elsewhere. When the section on "armpit fetishism" gets to the point where it is ready for a full article, this page can then be recreated. This is normal practice in other projects. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either fetishism or axillary intercourse. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AFD is not cleanup (that would make a good essay...). A Google Book search shows plenty of non-trivial references; clearly notable under GNG. Buddy431 (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTCLEANUP, however cleanup isn't the right word. The article is just two (2) sentences and will likely not reach full-article for several decades. Nothing to cleanup because this isn't an article yet. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From WP:FAILN "Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface." - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources available to meet GNG, eg. [2], [3], [4], [5]. Epbr123 (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- thanks for the sources Ep. None of them covered armpit fetishism in detail. There is some notable in this topic regardIng armpit odours and sexual attraction, however this isn't fetishism per se. Suggestions? - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should probably be renamed "armpit eroticism" or something. Epbr123 (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or armpitophilia, or whatever the latin/greek term is. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about Move to axillism (<- reliable source) with redirect? - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term axillism is too narrow as it specifically refers to using the armpit for intercourse. Plus, axillary intercourse is already covered in Non-penetrative sex. Epbr123 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a term for it derived from "maschal-" (Greek for ampit) called maschalophilous. Here's a source on this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC) However it doesn't seem to be in common use. Here's a reliable source that uses it but above there is the term maschalagnia meaning "a fetish for armpits." - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any more common term, just stick as armpit fetishism? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I propose that this nomination be cancelled and this article be merged with partialism which means sexual fetish of a (normally) non-sexual body part. This would improve both articles. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (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.