Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BDSM Emblem


 * 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. In the end, the original nomination reason remains: no reliable independent sources about this emblem. Fram (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BDSM Emblem

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A nonnotable subject about an emblem suggested at AOL message board by an anonymous person. No independent reliable sources to affirm notability. Timurite (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Has achieved wide dissemination within the BDSM community, as seen in its mention in the BDSM article itself, the fact that it was linked from Template:BDSM for years before this recent edit by Timurite etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to BDSM. Unless the lead is out of date, it says "The BDSM Emblem is a proposed 3-D symbol", which establishes no Notability.  C T J F 8 3  chat 07:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too sure what this really amounts to - there's no official BDSM body which could give it formal "approved" status (as opposed to "proposed"), but in practice it (or variants of it) have achieved relatively wide acceptance among its intended target group (and certainly very wide recognizability)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e b oi  ]] 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge but to Leather Pride flag under variations along with the BDSM emblem flag article also at AfD. The BDSM article is quite large and I'm unconvinced this really adds much there whereas the Leather Pride flag article is small and combined with the BDSM emblem flag would seem to make sense and allow for easy comparisons between the flags. -- Banj e  b oi   12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose such a merge, unless the resulting merged article were to be renamed with a neutral title such as BDSM symbols. Other than both being BDSM sysmbols, the Leather pride flag and BDSM emblem really don't have all that much in common (and in fact, one reason why the BDSM emblem was created was because the Leather pride flag was perceived by at least some to be somewhat narrowly associated with the gay leather subculture, rather than broadly with BDSM in general). AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A slightly better merger possibility (though still not great) might be "Ring of O"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Content can be merged in different ways to different articles, whatever works best is fine by me. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u
 * Delete This specific emblem is not the BDSM community emblem, but an old copyright dispute. The article should be completely rewritten to omit the disputed image and instead discuss the BDSM emblem.  If not rewritten, then deleting it will allow it to fade into obscurity so that someday, if notable, an article on the background of the BDSM emblem will resurface.  Atom (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a "copyright dispute" as such, and the emblem really doesn't owe most of its promulgation to Wikipedia -- the article "BDSM emblem" didn't exist on Wikipedia until Autumn 2006, but I remember the emblem achieving relatively widespread prominence on a number of BDSM websites in the late 1990's... AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. In any case, deleting the article won't come close to deleting all references to the emblem from Wikipedia, since there are about ten different altered versions of the emblem (different enough to be free of copyright claims) in the Commons "BDSM symbols" category (some of which are used in a number of places on non-English Wikipedias), and which would remain unaffected by the deletion of the BDSM emblem article here. AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence presented that the emblem accepted by significant BDSM community. Xuz (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * strong Delete - the article has no reliable sources about the emblem besides a description that a crook tried to extort money under false copyright pretenses, also published on a website of unknown authorship. Mukadderat (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever -- Do you have slightest reliable evidence that he's a "crook"?? I strongly doubt it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't hold my own claim that he is a crook. This is what I inferred from the cited ref and I wrote so here: "description that a crook tried to extort money" . If you imply that this reference is not reliable, than the ref must be removed from the article, thus making it even more deletable. Mukadderat (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have very little idea what you think you're talking about (and I doubt whether you do either, frankly). If you're referring (in an oblique and incorrect manner) to the "atruerose" website link, then that's a purely personal page on the site of someone who has been in conflict with the BDSM emblem creator in the past.  It was added to the BDSM emblem article to provide some rough "opposing views" balance or pseudo-balance, but it would almost certainly not satisfy the criteria laid down in WP:EL.  Furthermore, as I've said repeatedly before, it is really not the role of Wikipedia to take sides with respect to conflicting legal claims which have not been adjudicated in any court of law... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either you have troubles with logical thinking or my English was unclear. In the latter case the proper approach to ask for clarification, rather than making snide personal remarks. Here I am rephrasing: I was not taking any sides, nor expressing any opinion: I was summarizing the content of the reference (given in the article) in which someone accuses the inventor of the "emblem" in attempts to unfairly force people to pay money for copyright he does not own. I have no idea and don't care whether these accusations are true or false. All I was saying in the vote that the article has no third-party verifiable sources other than this feudish one, hence it has no place in wikipedia. Mukadderat (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem whatsoever in understanding that you have no absolutely no foundation of valid evidence for your rather extreme (and defamatory!) allegations and accusations that Quagmyr is a "crook"[sic], except that for some reason you have decided to engage in some form of partisan advocacy on behalf of "atruerose" against "Quagmyr". Frankly, I find such behavior to be pointless and unhelpful in the extreme, and if that's all that you're capable of, then there's really not much point in you trying to participate in AfD discussions. AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression is that "Quagmyr" the designer of the emblem, had the best of intentions to offer something to the community. The desire to copyright came later.  By copyright law, something of that nature is automatically copyrighted upon creation.  The problem is that the original emblem designed is not copyrightable as it is not distinctive enough.  The modified emblem, where copyright is claimed, is probably not copyrightable either, but (as far a I know) has not faced a challenge.  In any event, the article should be rewritten to focus on the emblem and its meaning and acceptance or lack thereof, and not on the copyright issue.Atom (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the problem of "controversy" sections of a Wikipedia article outrunning in length the main discussion of a topic is by no means unique to this article, but recurs in a number of articles. I guess people are often motivated to write about what they feel passionately about, or have strong opinions about... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Straightforward case: being "proposed" is crystal ball, lack of sources and notability, possibly exists as advertisement for merchandise solely.  Only argument for keeping above seems to be that it's mentioned on other pages on Wikipedia?  This AfD can be closed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually been "proposed" continuously since 1995, and has already achieved reasonable prominence among its intended target audience for approximately the last ten years or so, so I really don't know what "crystal balls" have do with anything. AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:CBALL - having an article on a proposed symbol is not particularly encyclopedic. It seems to be looking forward to being adopted, and in that sense that is how crystal ball is related.  That it hasn't caught on in ten years' time doesn't speak well of its chances.  I don't find evidence of "reasonable prominence" and would be curious where you have found it; add it to the article. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be indulging in some degree of semantic hair-splitting -- the only real reason why it's called "proposed" is that there's no official BDSM body which could formally bless it with any official "approved" status (as I already stated in my comments of "09:28, 6 March 2010" a week and a half ago above), and in practice it has in fact achieved reasonable prominence among its intended target audience for approximately the last ten years or so.  There's actually an easily available abundance of evidence for this -- but unfortunately rarely in the rigid format required for Wikipedia-approved "reliable sources".  For example, just go to Google images search and put in "BDSM emblem" or "BDSM triskelion" or "BDSM symbol" or "Quagmyr" and it's fairly clear that there are hundreds of websites that have images of Quagmyr's symbol, or derived similar versions of the symbol. AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't strike me as semantics. Though if there's nobody to officially adopt it, then "proposed" isn't really a good word, as there's nobody to officially propose it either.  Aren't there some print references that could be found, like for rainbow flag?  If there's not, if it's just some degree of enthusiasm on the internet that can be "proven" by a Google image search, then it's not really Wikipedia's place to do original research regarding how widespread it is, or how old it is, etc. and some actual group needs to adopt it, or some publications needs to write about it.  Personally, I'd be fine with even BDSM publications not even mainstream ones, but I may be alone in that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the emblem that Quagmyr claims copyright on with the BDSM Emblem that is in the public domain. The public domain image was first proposed in 1995, the specific image that is copyrighted (claimed) is not that emblem.  The Emblem described on the page being proposed for deletion is the later.  If the article were to be rewritten to describe the emblem that has become adopted by the BDSM community, it would be different.  Atom (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We've gone around and around on this at Talk:BDSM Emblem, and you haven't been able to bring forward any specific concrete evidence (such as from Google Groups search of alt.sex.bondage or soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm archives) for your personal theory of an alternative "sequence of events", and you haven't come up with a concrete instance of what you consider to be the "real BDSM emblem" (other than File:BDSM_logo.svg, an image whose origins I know a lot about, since I was intimately involved), so I really don't think I'm "confused". AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.