Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy's girl fetish

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. BJ^Talk 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy's girl fetish

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then delete again. I don't even know where to begin. Deltabeignet (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. I don't really care what the subject of the article is, but I do care that there are no sources. I ran a few book searches I found nothing on this topic, just some psychology texts on non-sexual family roleplaying therapies. Reliable sources covering this fetish are needed, otherwise there's no evidence this is an encyclopedia article rather than original study of the hobby of random internet people. The former is good, the latter is not what Wikipedia is for. --Rividian (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Ageplay with cleanup Atom (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to even warrant a merge to Ageplay. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know where to begin to rework this article!--Ret.Prof (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the potential literary sources, this can stand on its own. As usual, we will probably have to adapt what we consider as reliable sources to this type of article, just as we do for other subjects that lack representation in the conventional mans of publication, and where most of us are unfamiliar with the actual literature. In my opinion, another in the continued saga of deletions of alternative sexuality. WP, the supposedly contemporary encyclopedia where things not found in maintream lterature are ignored. I care about the representation of the subject field, but not quite enough to go looking myself where i would need to look for sources. DGG (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS's, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is an actual fetish rather than merely a vanilla sexual fantasy (that is, an activity that is used for sexual variety rather than an actual preference over all other sexual expressions).

— James Cantor (talk) 17:08, 14 September 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.