Deletion of Bellypunching

Comment: per  and ... not verifiable and apparent original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: Those voting keep may be best to actually read the  policy once again (please delete - to be honest I'm still shocked that Donkey punch remains
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: twisted, perverted, |unsourced, |original research.  Also  and .  Goodbye cruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:BEANS||WP:BALLS)

Comment: As it stands, the article fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:VERIFY)

Comment: While links may prove this fetish ''exists'', they do not serve as |reliable sources with which to |verify the factual claims of the article.  That something is a sexual fetish does not indicate an inherent notability that would supercede inadequate sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: For those voting keep while ackowledging that this fails , a question: ''why'' is this worth keeping if no proper sources can be found?  Sure, it likely exists and some have heard of the practice, but why should a sexual fetish with a small audience have an article when, say, a webcomic with a small, but clearly existent, following and no relaible third-party media coverage is readily deleted?  Why should an article about a sexual fetish garner apparent AfD bonus points
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)