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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictionmania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: To start out, the two main sources in the article consist of a single footnote in one article in Archives of Sexual Behavior (see the bottom right corner of the sixth page) and a 2-page mention in a semi-obscure book (in exactly what capacity, I don't know). Upon further digging, I can find a mention here very briefly in a less obscure book, and a less brief mention in a book by the same author (seemingly the same book in a different language) – neither of which seem to discuss the site itself in any meaningful capacity, as well as what appears to be tenuous, passing mentions of the site in a handful of academic papers. Comment: As an aside, the author of that aforementioned semi-obscure book has a Wikipedia article that should probably also end up here someday due to their ostensible failure of WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NWEB as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 13 June 2019 (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.