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 Keep, weak consensus that an article on this topic should exist but it needs improvement and more sourcing. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood fetish[edit]

Fails WP:N. Google search for Bloodfetish shows 24,200 ghits [1], scholar shows 7 ghits [2], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Hematolagnia returns no ghit in scholar [3], haematophilia shows only 7 ghits in scholar [4], Vampire, Fetish returns only 3 ghits in scholar [5]. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources Fails notability guideline. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Overliteral search. Blood as a sexual fetish is a rather common phenomenon, as the linked articles show. The title terminology is parallel to the other similar articles in Wikipedia and is justified. I suppose it would be helpful is a few sources were added, but they need not use the same wording. A good start would be the 7 GS hits found. Seven academic articles discussing the subject is enough. They do not have to be mainly on the subject, just have significant coverage. DGG (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Ghits and Google scholar hits which I looked at show it as part of Vampirism, so this article could be replaced by a redirect. It has been noted in several AFDs, which deleted someone's particular fetish, that people can become sexually obsessed about literally anything, but the obsession of a few does not make their sexual interest notable enough for an encyclopedia article. If there are reliable sources with significant coverage, please cite them explicitly, rather than relying on links to websearches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect by no-name is ok too) This one is a lot of bloody original research and no sources, though I like that the author threw in a book called Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection to give this an air of sophistication. Technically, anything can be a sexual fetish. I had a friend who got sexually aroused whenever he rode a roller coaster, and he couldn't wait to get off. Anyway, we have to look at what's notable, and nominator has made the point that it's one of the lesser thrills. Links to other Wikipedia articles mean nothing when it comes to this particular page. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a friend who got sexually aroused whenever he rode a roller coaster, and he couldn't wait to get off. Did you intend that to be a double entendre? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. You win tickets to Madonna: The Ride and the Corkscrew at Six Flags Over Gomorrah. Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many overspecific fetish articles on the WP. While I don't doubt there is a cluster of fetishes centering around bloodplay, vampires, and the like, it should really be handled by a line or two in the sexual fetishism article ( which itself used to have paragraphs about the different types of fetishes, and would have been a great candidate for a many-to-one merge, but it's become a mass of psychoanalytic prose and concentrates only on the disease view of fetishism ). As far as the Egypt book, that's about what fetishism means in anthropology, not about sexual fetishism. Anyway i recommend a delete not a merge because delete will mean one less entry in an overly long list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am generally for deleting articles like this when they're something ridiculously niche like balloon fetishism or suffocating a bird in a box fetishism, but bloodplay is a fairly standard paraphilia. While I don't know anything about the topic, I do know it is a common concern among practicioners of BDSM whether they accept bloodplay or not. The article as it stands is a bit ridiculous (as Mandsford points out) but that can be fixed. JuJube (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per user DGG. As Otolemur crassicaudatus admits, 29000 hits on google. 58 on Google print, 16 on google news. All of his other links are Google scholar, which his mention actually boosts the reason we should keep. Inclusionist (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a rare fetish at all, and a sensible article on this subject should exist. Currently it's not this one, but I'm reasonably confident it could become it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like standard practice to have articles about specific paraphilias on Wikipedia, just see List of paraphilias. This paraphilia is particularly notable. See [6] for a quick scholarly source. Themfromspace (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a real and notable thing, but the article definitely needs help. Almost a CSD as fundamentally non-encyclopedic. Frank | talk 15:47, 29 July 2008 (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.