Talk:Aquaphilia

message: This is a real term used by some fetish websites, I checked on google. But a lot of fetish groups doesn't always add up to verifiability. If nobody can cite it with real sources, it has gotta go, simple enough. So the next time someone edits this and doesn't add a credible source, I guess I'll nominate it for deletion? Something has got to be done besides. Lotusduck 20:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: All wikipedia pages must be verifiable by a "reliable" published source- that's the policys' language, so see the guideline's definition of reliable. 
As WP:Verifiability states, this can under some circumstances be a insider organization, as in the example of a socialist magazine being used as a source for a page on socialism. 
The links, while informative, are not published sources.
I myself have had absolutely no luck in finding a published source on the topic.
Does anyone have an intention of finding a published source for the information on this article?
There is no question that all articles need verification by a published source- it is long standing policy.
: So 89 different Google hits for Aquaphilia are worthless? Maybe I should ask the whole of Wikipedia to be deleted - after all, the whole idea of a Wikipedia only exists withn wikipedia...
: Editors are trying to find verifiables, howabout letting them get on with it and stop threatening to delete their work.
While notability and verifiability are connected, they are different. A number of google hits is a neccessary thing for an article, for it's notability. Published sources are also neccessary. Wikipedia may seem like a big lovey-dovey consensus, but it isn't. All articles must be backed with verifiable facts. Show me an article with no references, and I'll show you a reference for it, or a deleted article. See Wikipedia: Verifiability please. Lotusduck 20:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be fair to say that Aquaphilia is a form of underwater erotica... Perhaps just a DAB page or a redirect? Tramlink 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK - I can agree with your feelings on this one, and I can also legitimately write a verifiable paragraph on the source of the decriptive term used by some Aquatic Erotica fetishists... which we can politely discuss in future. I'm all for deletion of thispage once that one exists. Tramlink 22:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: Well, after all this time and arguing, and a little growing up, I have nominated this page for deletion. If you want this page to be saved, attribute it to a published source, although I have already tried and I think it's impossible. Another option is to write true things about aquatic erotica on this page and attribute them. That's sneaky! It might confuse people into thinking that the current usage of "aquaphilia" is attributable, just because something related that is put into the article is attributable. I've seen it before, and a lot of the perpetrators of this practice think that they are right in defending their neologism. If that's the way you want to go, visit your local library. One published source that talks (sort of) about aquatic erotica is
Wet Paint: Herman Melville, Elihu Vedder, and Artists Undersea
Charles C. Eldredge 
American Art, Vol. 11, No. 2. (Summer, 1997), pp. 106-135. 
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1073-9300%28199722%2911%3A2%3C106%3AWPHMEV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
mainly on page 129. Lotusduck 19:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to the THUNDERDOME