Talk:Glove fetishism

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

merge to List of fetishes?

Any objections to a merge?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose, this is an article, not a list, and you would need to merge nearly a hundred such articles. This can stand on its own. Thank you for asking, though. Chris 04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order that an article stand on its own, it should be attributed. So far this is not at all, and I would be within policy to remove every sentence in this article.Lotusduck 21:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You take the letter of the law to the damage of the spirit of the law. Chris 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

original research

This along with this whole article, is not backable by a published source. It's just a few people's opinions written in an informational tone. "While apart from their appearance some individuals go as far as using them on oneself or others as a form of sexual stimulation. More common for this are usually nitrile gloves, such as what doctors/nurses use for examination, while others prefer the household rubber glove. The appeal behind the household glove maybe due to the colours they come in but also offering what the latex examination gloves cannot. The household glove are thicker, some more than others depending on what their use is." Lotusduck 21:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are welcome to fact-tag the article, you are not welcome to gut the article for the sake of the merge tag you placed here. That is bad form. Chris 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps-this article meets none of the criteria for original research under "What is excluded?" Yes, agreed it needs sourcing. But it's not written in a way to extend a point of view or present a theory, it's just an unsourced explanation. Chris 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only an unsourced explanation if it can be sourced. It is apparent to me that if sources were found discussing glove fetishism at length, every word would be rewritten, what occurs to some editors and what is verifiable to be true do not uniformly intersect. Lotusduck 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

This article has existed since 2005 and has not had one reference added in that time. It is non-compliant with wikipedia policy in this sense. I feel the unreferenced tag is suitable for fact tagging every sentence in this article, and that tag has been here since November of last year. So since these claims have been tagged for three months, what is the standard after which they may be removed? Four months?Lotusduck 03:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I accept your thinking on this. Let's set an actual date. It is Wednesday or Thursday, depending on where you are. I think if people know there is a reasonable amount of time in which to repair an article, they will act on it, and if not, then you are welcome to it. Is a week good? Two? Chris 04:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on wikipedia time is not an enormous factor. IF someone was planning on fixing it, it wouldn't matter if I removed almost all of the article and placed it on the talk page--things would be put back with sources in their own time whether I did that or not. If action is being taken more than two weeks is totally okay, but if it seems like only more un-cited original research is being added and the unreferenced tag is not being addressed then I am more concerned. Of course I will be making sure that sources comply to wikipedia standards, since well meaning people often try to cite forums and non-notable web pages. Lotusduck 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]