Deletion of Circumcision fetish (second nomination)

Comment: Obviously |original research, and those defending the article still have not been able to come up with one  single reference that meets Wikipedia's |reliable sources requirements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:RS)

Comment: There are no validated sources to even demonstrate that this fetish exists; while I'm sure that it does (since just about anything imaginable is a fetish for someone), Wikipedia accepts neither |original research nor unreliable sources as the basis for an article.  I'd speedy this except someone would no doubt have a fit; however, I ''am'' going to remove the reference to "circumcision fetish" from Sexual fetishism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: as per nominator. |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: The reason this one should be deleted is that, since there are no verifiable sources, as near as we can tell it is simply made up; note that one of the sources in the article is actually a letter by a wikipedia editor.  This, it seems to me, egregiously violates the |no original research guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)