Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexual 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 delete. Enigma^msg 17:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual fetishism

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

Article has gone uncited for about 5 years now. The article creator (Rafaelosornio) claims to be a psychologist and the original article (c. 2013) quotes a "Rafael Medina." It appeared to be OR at the time. The current state of the article states, "fetishizing the experience or a related experience, such as submission or humiliation." Submission and/or humiliation is not exclusive to homosexuality (BDSM). Next the term "homosexual fetishism." In reviewing some academic literature, the term is referred to with regards to leather, foot, or other types of sexual play that is not exclusive to homosexuality. I think this article needs to be deleted, without discrimination for a better referenced/defined article in the future. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As was already mentioned by @Classicwiki: it's completely unsourced. My cursory glance of sources found it to be an outdated term for "homosexuality" (not denying Classicwiki's findings, but yeah, I'm not seeing this being a simultaneously distinct yet unified topic). I've previously had to fuss at the author for copying and pasting text from the Catechism into articles. That suggests a lack of academic rigor that would render their work suspect even if they are a real psychologist. That's probably why the term is not used in any article on the site. Also, the article currently reads like it's suggesting that homosexuals are really only pretending to be gay because they're dirty, dirty perverts. I'm having trouble seeing Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over applying. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of value in the current version or elsewhere in the page history. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable at all, also possibly a hoaxy dictionary definition? SportingFlyer talk 23:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five years and there is even less here than the original unsourced stub that should not have been accepted. We can always create a proper article on this if needed and properly sourced. I find it interesting that a new editor appears, claims to be a psychologist with their first edit, spends 3 days editing exclusively sexual topics (transvestism, homosexuality, fetishism, and pedophilia), and then five years editing exclusively religious topics. Meters (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally ambiguous title, dict def. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rather ridiculous article that offers no content value to the project. Chetsford (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2018 (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.