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. No sources, no assertion of notability, original research, etc... Neofreak sums it up well. yandman 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lift and carry[edit]

Lift and carry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An article on the fetish of "carrying people". No joke. This is another neologism and orginal research fetish article created by a budding online enthusiest community with no reliable sources or verifiability. The extent of the article's sources are some yahoo groups and fan sites in External Links. The trend of internet interest groups getting together and making articles about themselves under the guise of it being a documented condition or trend has got to stop. This doesn't border on ridiculous, it takes a flying leap off the edge. Wikipedia is not a publisher of orginal thought, a soapbox or social networking site. Fails WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:RS per WP:V. NeoFreak 14:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not verfied. Madmedea 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it gains a reliable source. I've actually heard of this before, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.ZimmerBarnes 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: So Delete "as is"? NeoFreak 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. Leuko 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeI've looked for articles on this on google. '"lift and carry" fetish' gets over 16,000 hits, so it is popular, just nothing in the way of an article. Most websites also cover fetishes of strong women, "Amazons", and the like, so if there's an article on that, they could be merged. ZimmerBarnes 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references which are reliable to show notability. All these fetishes could be put in a list. Edison 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm working on a list of them to clean up, source, merge or delete. NeoFreak 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. It's whatever turns you on. Ohconfucius 09:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It being such an underground fetish makes it hard for it to have been documented. And proof of this existing is the fact that there seems to be lots of sites on the internet that are making photo/video sets in this fetish's name. Seems hard to call this something that somebody made up seeing as this have been around for decades and have actually found it's nishe on the internet. Bundling it with other fetishes would not work as two fetishes never is one single fetish. londoneers 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC) — Londoneers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• keep the very nature of such topics makes them difficult to document by conventional sources, and if WP is to have articles about anything on this general type of subject, then documentation such as this article has is sufficient. (& considering recent talk on the N guidelines, there seems to be some acceptance of flexibility here). Personally, I wonder if some of the opposition to articles on fetishes etc. is perhaps based on unconscious discomfort with the topics. Topics people are uncomfortable with, just as in political or religious topics some people are uncomfortable with--should be included whenever any evidence of them is found, lest we indirectly censor. I certainly do not mean this is the motivation of anyone taking any particular position on this article--just a general comment/caution. Unless I watch myself, I find myself reacting similarly to certain types of articles. DGG 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you both get familiar with wikipedia rules on attribution. This policy states: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Since this material is, as you say, an underground fetish (and a neologism) it cannot meet his requirment and is therefore subject to deletion. Just because something may be true does not mean that it fulfills the requirments for an article on wikipedia. NeoFreak 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, material here must be documented in reliable sources. If it's too "underground" for that, it's not a suitable topic until that happens! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No encyclopedia could be complete without all the terms people use and like it or not, it's an every day term for some of us. One Yahoo group (heifadreamlift) has more than 13700 members, so it seems to me that this hobby/fetish is popular enough to be left out. Or you can delete it if you like, but then Wikipedia will not be accurate and helpfull concerning this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bokostas (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 February 2007. — Bokostas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete If Wikipedia allows articles that can't be well-sourced, then the encyclopedia will inevitably make hoaxes easier, and they will proliferate. The article must be deleted if sourcing is not possible. Avoiding more hoaxes is more important than extending coverage to things that aren't established or documented well enough to have sources. Noroton 16:40, 20 February 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.