Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veil 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veil fetishism[edit]

After spending much time at Wikipedia:List of policies, I believe this article breaks these policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Another person on Talk:Veil fetishism has also written with good cause that there is no evidence for so-called "veil fetishism" and this is a true statement. Intervixen 08:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V, WP:NOR. Even if such a fetish exists, there are no reliable sources for it; the cited works seem to make no reference to veils as a sexual fetish. Sandstein 08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i agree with Sandstein. Only one source in the whole list actually refers to it's existence (Pornscan???), and many posts there are making a mockery of the idea. While it may actually exist, the author will need to cite something even remotely authoritative about it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see any references for this as a fetish. SkierRMH,09:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even poorer sourcing than most sexual fetish articles, which takes some doing. Unlike many of the rest, though, there doesn't even seem to be a plausible chance of references being found here. Serpent's Choice 09:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These pages, Chador fetishism and Chador fetish, redirect to "Veil fetishism". Is it possible to list that one with this article or does it require a separate deletion request? I should say that "chador fetishism" also does not exist. I notice that User:Patchouli is responsible for a lot of this. Intervixen 17:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepThis article is sourced and there is no reason for its deletion whatsoever. Here are some places for more research:

http://www.pervscan.com/2005/06/02/all-girls-are-good-to-look-at/

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/388

http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/79_feat1.html

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/kahwes.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/11/1160246195653.html?page=2

http://mayanot.easycgi.com/archive/article.asp?ArticleID=111 :* http://www.mdblackweddings.com/article.htm

http://www.rickross.com/reference/smart/smart11.html

http://www.warriorprincess.com/seasontwo/ep33_solsticecarol.html

http://www.dvdreview.com/html/the_mummy_wrap_party.html

http://www.dustbury.com/archives/000515.html

Erotic Muslims in Today's World Warning: Adult site (used in context to demonstrate Islamic veil fetish

http://www.beurettes-rebelles.com/beurette22.html shows it exists.

Veiled Babes Why are Western publishers so keen on shrouded cover models?

This is a reality. So much so, that currently conspiracy theories have sprung up like Muslim Porn: CIA Psychological Warfare?. There are even true events surrounding this like Israeli Arab Muslim mob lynches porno actress. Also, this article is not exclusively on Muslims. It is about the fetish of veils, in general. There are even nuns with veils having sex like http://www.fucking-nuns.com/thumbs/photo.php?4 (used in context). Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia is not censored. There are many other objectionable articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to amass vote to have your it way.--Patchouli 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having checked some of the links above. They are unreliable, trivial or do not mention "veil fetish". Wikipedia is top hit on the Web, and if you exclude Wikipedia you get things like FaithFreedom as the leading sources. Nothing on Google Scholar, nothing on Factiva, nothing relevant on Google News. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives 5,500 hits for "veil fetish". Furthermore, it is the concept and idea that is important. Not the word; there are are names for a single concept.--Patchouli 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What concept? What idea? Nothing that can be gleaned from reliable sources, at any rate. So there's porn with veiled women, big deal: there's any imaginable type of porn on the Net. But to construct an actual sexual fetish out of this would certainly need good citations for the veil being used as a fetish rather than just an item of clothing, and such sources have not been provided. Sandstein 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, a fetish is an inanimate object that arouses sexual excitement. There are abundant sources above to back this.--Patchouli 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patchouli, it's all Muslim porn, Orientalism and odalisques. There's no evidence that guys are salivating over imaginary renderings of upper-class Byzantine or Sassanian women in veils, to name some other civilizations that veiled women. Let's merge anything useful to Muslim porn. Zora 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above, on this page is a link for nuns. Here is one for male-to-female trans-sexuals http://www.toyracorsetant.com/Tour/01/Toyra_WhiteRopes_0538.jpg. Then there are cross-dressrers with veils,etc. Muslim porn is a sub-set of this article.--Patchouli 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim porn is a redirect to veil fetish, so redirecting there won't help. What probably needs to happen is for all the Mad Libs-esque (clothing) fetish articles to be merged into something (clothing fetish, maybe? I don't know, this isn't my demense) and then that content cited or tossed. Regarding the referecing, there is more to documenting a (clothing) fetish than showing evidence that women wearing (clothing) have flirted with men in a movie or that you can create erotica/pornography involving women wearing (clothing). Serpent's Choice 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing is an extremely broad term. A t-shirt is clothing. Don't worry. I have pasted the entire article on my user page.--Patchouli 11:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better solution would be Redirect to Mask fetishism. Patchouli is right in that the Muslim thing is only part of it, though it may well be an important one - a more important detail is that the veil anonymises the women to some extent - a feature shared with the similar Mask fetishism. A redirect and smerge to that would seem to me to be a more sensible option, with links to Muslim porn, Harem fetishism and the like there if such articles exist. Grutness...wha? 11:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (after not one or two, but three edit conflicts!)[reply]
The mask one is suggestive of a leather covering of the face and/or body. Veil and everything described in the article concern fabric as far as I can think. That article which may be 1/10 times as complete as this one is separate. Apples and orange belong to the fruit category, but we have different article for each.--Patchouli 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it from that you haven't read Mask fetishism. It makes it patently clear that it can be any type of mask or face covering. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note that despite surviving an AFD in Dec 2005, mask fetishism has only one reference from what appears to be a reliable source, and that is a BBC news report about a mask fetishist who devlolved into criminal behavior! And even that barely mentions the topic itself. I suggested the broad merge because, frankly, these stubby paraphilia articles seem to struggle to be able to find enough references to stay afloat. Serpent's Choice 11:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surprising - "Mask+fetish" returns 14000 ghits. Starting with this one. There are also quite a few sites at the Yahoo directory dedicated to mask fetishism, and there are even mask fetish conventions such as [Maskon. Not that that page couldn't use a lot of expansion - mask fetishism is quite common in Japan, for instance, and is related to the full body-costume fetish of kigurumi (itself related to turning real people into anime-like cartoons) - but that's not mentioned anywhere on that page. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See above links, it clearly is a fetish; but it does need to be better re-written. Somitho 13:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Baseless speculations by some people alien to such traditions; failing WP:V, WP:NOR. What about Jeans fetishism ?! Sun glass fetishism ?! Gorbeh 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: User:Patchouli's list of contribution is interesting; abusing wikipedia for promoting personal opinions. Promoting terms like Muslim porns!!! Scarf fetishism!! this is not what wikipedia is standing for. Please make also articles: christian porn, Jewish porn and liberal porn, Marxist porn .... !!! Such issues are unencyclopedic. Gorbeh 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please to whomever is in charge of deletions, please also add Muslim porn (which was created by User:Patchouli) to this list if it is agreed to delete. With thanks. Intervixen 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Headscarf fetish like http://www.toyracorsetant.com/Tour/01/Toyra_WhiteRopes_0538.jpg is veil fetish but not mask fetish.--Patchouli 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable phenomenon, although could probably do with some tighter sourcing. - Francis Tyers · 15:41, 24 December 2006 (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.