Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiccup 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 of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hiccup fetishism

del. zero google hits. mikka (t) 22:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - try broadening your search. Some guy 23:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. "Hiccup fetish" gives a couple of hit from blogs and. Still, original research; no reputable sources and nonnotable scale. mikka (t) 01:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We need a speedy deletion criterion for anything "not found outside a blog" — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact there are even a couple websites that collect hiccups, so this case is not exactly speedy. mikka (t) 03:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't have an credible source for being an actual fetish. user:Sethie
• Delete If not OR then dicdef. If not dicdef then non-notable neologism. If not neologism then indiscriminate and unverifiable (how common? what medical textx reference this?) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have this fetish and I am delighted that it has finally achieved some recognition. Consider my a voice a legitimate vote in favor of verifying that this is a real thing. (Plus I note that it was listed in "less common," and it is--so what? The Sexual Fetishism heading had it listed as such, so I say it is being accurately listed as uncommon--but nonetheless a real attraction.) —preceding unsigned comment by 68.48.143.120 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move to BJAODN. Stifle 23:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after doing a little research, I don't buy it as legit. Even with [1]; that site seems more of a joke than anything. There certainly isn't any scholarly documentation of this as there is with many other fetishes. The same person that created this article added the link to Sexual fetishism. At the very least this should be brought up for discussion on the sexual fetishism talk page as to whether or not to add it there. Peyna 04:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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.