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 no consensus. Wizardman 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy fetishism[edit]

Non-notable, non-existent topic. Unsourced since June 2006. No evidence of coverage in WP:RS, no evidence of notability. Valrith 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search of google proves its existence. This website makes reference to the fetish under "EROTIC LITERATURE MARKET" (denoted R). mattbuck 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep distasteful as it may seem this pornographic niche exists, there was a segment on it in Channel 4's "Pornography: The Secret History of Civilisation" for which there is a [1] I haven't seen this book (not that I'd admit to it even if I had) so I can't add it as a source. KTo288 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, this falls under the category of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Burntsauce 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant question is: can the article be referenced properly? Given the other linked pages in the box at the bottom of the page, I can't see how you keep this one out. It's certainly hard to find anything with a Google search, considering the topic. MarkBul 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep not per other junk exists, but because it seems we have one good source listed above already.DGG (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to prove validity due to a lack of reliable sources including those discussed in this deletion debate. Someone's private sexual fetish may exist in their own mind, but be no more than original research and thus not qualified for an encyclopedia article. Note: women usually do not lactate during pregnancy, so there is also a lot of nonsense in the article, further qualifying it for deletion. Edison 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit harsh to call it someones private sexual fetish, it is more wide spread than that, however the only respectable looking site I can find for it is this one from Psychology Today which discusses fetishism in general and pregnancy fetishism appears in the list of fetishes.KTo288 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to assert notability. Cogswobble talk 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bear in mind that there are also French, Russian, Portuguese and Japanese versions of this page, so the charge of being "someone's private sexual fetish" is clearly unjustified. (The French version does quote a book as a source, but it's apparently a translation.) Also note that there's quite a lot of articles linking to this one [[2]], although most of them are about other types of fetishism, presumably even less notable than this one -- Sneezing fetishism, anyone? Henrik Ebeltoft 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Amazing, the stuff Wikipedia contains, you learn something new every day![reply]
Keep. Not my thang, but certainly notable. Don't you read Savage Love? Haven't you seen Little Miss Sunshine? There's a scene with bizarre mags. Bearian 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THere is no soruce. Marlith ^T/C 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maieusiophilia seems to be the term for attraction to pregnant women: [3]. Perhaps the article should be moved there--Victor falk 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)?[reply]
Keep I conducted the Google search and indeed, pregnancy fetishism does exist. No offense, but maybe you should start Googling stuff first before you say it's nonexistent.

--Gp75motorsports 11:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Gp75motorsports[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.