Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetish 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 and redirect. Sr 13 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fetish fetish[edit]

Is this worthy of a Wikipedia article? Voortle 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Fetish as it was before. Wildthing61476 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, stub, unlikely to ever grow into an article. Tempshill 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense or redirect back to Fetish. --Finngall ^talk 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any sources, create redirect back to main article. --Nehrams2020 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources for this phenomenon; no need for redirect, as it's confusing. The Evil Spartan 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No redirect. Sounds hoaxy, like the old joke about being charged a "Tax Tax". - Richfife 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NFT. Although I have heard that fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish is a grammatically complete sentence.--Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Little Caesar's private life is his own business. ~ Infrangible 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whip whip back into obscurity obscurity. Might be worth a redirect to Fetish. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; or dab with the movie. John Vandenberg 20:03, 7 June 2007 (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.