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 - keep with option to merge
Most of this article appears to be based on a usenet flamewar and a few google searches. I've waited a while before listing it on VFD to see if it was going anywhere, but I don't think this is going to turn into anything encyclopedic or even informative. My reasons for wanting it deleted are a combination of Original Research and very Not Notable. See also: Talk:Foreskin fetish#Should_this_article_even_exist.3F --fvw* 00:04, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
Pieces like When the fetish becomes a problem, this may interfere with normal sexual or social functioning. are obvious: this in particular is the nature of all fetishes. I suggest a purge of useless information, and merging the rest as a subsection of Sexual fetish. - rernst 00:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that one would term a focus on the foreskin, itself a source of sexual pleasure to the owner, as a paraphilia. Delete
Looking closer it seems to me that the phrase may simply be a term of abuse tossed at one party by the other in pro- and con- circumcision arguments.
Looking at the references, I see that the one labelled "Foreskin fetish material - Pleasures of the Foreskin" is apparently a site putting arguments against removal of the foreskin on grounds of its, well, function as part of the male sexual apparatus.
The one labelled "Foreskin fetish material - Gallery of Intact Men and their Foreskins" is a link to some pictures of rather well endowed men who happen not to have been circumcised. One doesn't need to be a fetishist to find these pictures stimulating; indeed most non-US porn necessarily incorporates uncut men because circumcision is comparatively rare in Europe and much of Asia.
Seems to have a companion, circumcision fetish, which is a virtual carbon copy, quoting DSM, etc. Equally pointless. Seems to be a tit-for-tat thing.
Delete: First, its use as a POV debate among some very angry and energetic Wikipedia editors means that this article will have problems. Second, the fetish is not for the foreskin, one hopes, as a dissociated object or an object in toto. Third, there is a level of fetish that we do not need to cover (thinking of the clear plastic raincoat fetishist of some months ago). Geogre 03:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retain. It is with interest that the desperation to have this article deleted or at least edited into a vanilla version is observed. If every article that is contentuous is deleted then Wikipedia would not be worth much. One should look past the reasons for deletion offered to the agenda. It is an important article in the context of the cirumcision debate. - Robert the Bruce 04:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merge with sexual fetish, unless sexual fetish is already too big, then keep. --Rebroad 13:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ignore comments above insinuating that Wikipedia has an agenda while disregarding NPOV policies. -Fennec(はさばくのきつね) 05:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Trim the links though. With a Mohel. Heh heh. --Improv 05:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retain. There's no good reason to delete an informative article. - Jakew 13:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but remove questionable and unnecessary materials -- I have been trying to do so for some time now, but have been consistently thwarted by Jakew's itchy revert finger. Discussions on the treatment of fetishes and links to so-called "foreskin fetish materials" do not belong in the article. Exploding Boy 16:40, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Poorly supported in the reference material. "One can gauge the extent of this fetish by carrying out Google searches on "foreskin fetish", "foreskin worship" and on the varients of "foreskin love/r/s"." Googling is not a great way to "gauge the extent" of a fetish. Most of the article and reference material only talks in general terms about fetishisms and the article seems to conjecture that sexual attention to the foreskin is "paraphilia" and a "fetish". Its main support comes from a 1965 article in a scientific journal, which has not been cited a lot since then. — David Remahl 14:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A lot of specialised paraphilias have attracted little interest from researchers, but maintain a thriving community of interest on the Internet, and they are no less valuable for that. This appears to be one of them. Also, it's clearly not original research if there is such information available on the Internet. GeorgeStepanek 06:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merge with fetish and redirect]] [[User:The Epopt|--the Epopt of the Cabal]] 02:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merge with Circumcision fetish. Genital organs are technically not the focus of this fetish. The frenulum, glans, scrotum, and other related parts do not have their specialized fetish article. Clearly advocates of circumcision believe this fetish aligns itself solely with whether or not some parts are cut off. Whether this means a woman with large breasts (or her husband who admires them) has a breast fetish is not something they address. Clearly, it is the presence or absence of the organ, by way of removal, that is endlessly highlighted -- not the organ itself. For that reason, it seems logical to merge this into the circumcision fetish article. DanP 19:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd argue that circumcision fetish should be merged with circumcision and foreskin fetish with foreskin. Either way, you make a good point about "breast fetish." Exploding Boy 20:14, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep or merge with foreskin. The topic itself is a valid topic and is a real fetish (though one can argue that anything is a real fetish) but I feel if the article cannot be expanded it should be merged with a related article rather than be left as is. Cari0028 01:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Have made some changes which I hope are useful. It is clearly not original research if there are references available in journals. I agree it would be no more notable than many other minor fetishes but still worth keeping. No objection to merge with circumcision fetish or foreskin. The Land 17:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete Put with sexual fetish. --Tom - Talk 17:59, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I find it interesting to note that when I mention the agenda of a small group of activists they try to hide behind the notion that they actually reflect the opinions of all Wikipedians. I say once again that one needs to consider the agenda behind the desperation to delete this specific article. - Robert the Bruce 05:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
everyone's got an agenda. That's the way it is. But my concern is with the quality of wikipedia: this article is low quality, has redudant information, and does not deserve an article to itself. Your agenda is much more questionable. - rernst 17:32, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am appalled at the breathtaking arrogance of this Fvw person who seems to have appointed himself to patrol Wikipedia and personally decide what qualifies as an article and what does not. By arbitrarily attaching VfD tag to the article he is now forcing other people to follow a course of actions that are certainly not necessary. I suggest that his actions are close to requiring a RfC. - Robert the Bruce 14:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The process you describe, "patrolling" wikipedia and marking possible candidates for deletion, is a necessary part of the maintenance operation of the wiki. If you think someone is misusing the VfD tag, by all means raise it in RfC. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony SidawayTalk]] 15:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Calm down, RtB, and get off your high horse. Exploding Boy 17:00, Nov 30, 2004 (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.