Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plushophile

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plushophile[edit]

The article is about a neologism (one which is a frankly bizarre - and, I suspect, totally fictional - psychosexual perversion/internet hoax - you be the judge which term is more applicable). My understanding is that neologisms have a higher-than-average standard for notability, as per WP:Avoid neologisms. This article might meet a low threshold for notability, but a high one? Not a chance. Additionally, it seems that Wiktionary would be a more appropriate place for a somewhat scaled-down version of this peculiar little stub. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable sub-culture. Adequately referenced stub. Chuthya (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or if necessary merge to a list of minor sexual fetishes that allows referenced entries of a few paragraphs. The topic is real - as was pointed out to the nominator on the talk page, the Museum of Sex included some in an exhibit. GreenReaper (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into one of the ~~funny~~ furry culture articles. It is rare and real, but not my thing. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be merged to furry fandom, any more than food play should be merged to Iron Chef. It's a fetish, not a fan activity. More importantly, it's not particularly prevalent among members of the fandom. A survey at the turn of the century found <1% (less than those willing to call themselves zoophiles), and I trust that a good deal more than I do an article in Vanity Fair. Fuzzy animals just happen to be a popular form of plush toys. GreenReaper (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable sub-culture of the furry fandom, and is adequately referenced for a stub article. Given that the fetish has been referenced by Vanity Fair, Eurotrash, and CSI, it's not unreasonable to expect Wikipedia to accept that this neologism is, in fact, notable enough to keep. Lithorien (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you really think that being featured in a fictional (not to mention supremely crappy) tv show like "CSI" genuinely enhances the Notability of this article's subject? I'd probably ask a similar question about "Eurotrash"...if I had any idea what that was. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they mean Eurotrash (TV series). Notability of a sort, although I think that episode was about ConFurence 10 and not plushophiles. Similarly, I'm not sure where CSI comes in, as the episode did not cover them. GreenReaper (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact mean Eurotrash (TV series), thank you GreenReaper. Also, KevinOKeeffe, just because you have a crusade against something and haven't heard of sources supporting it doesn't mean that the source is any less notable. The CSI show was Fur and Loathing (ep. 406). Lithorien (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, but make it a little more funny with phots of the adults who dress up as stuffed animals and then mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.130.72 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable sub-culture. Has enough reliable coverage. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2009 (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.