Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball lock


 * 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. No evidence of sources actually existing, despite claims. If anyone wants this content for a merge or to further work on the article in your userspace, let me know. W.marsh 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ball lock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't doubt that there's nothing people won't do to their genitals, but in this case, we have no reliable independent sources for it. The article fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Sandstein 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and add approprate tags to request sources. HalJor 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, it is up to you to provide sources if you want the article to be kept. You have the five days this AfD will run, after all. Sandstein 19:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and here's a site that promotes this sort of thing: Locknkeep. And a variety of ball locks can apparently be purchased at: Extreme Restraints. I'm unclear why this article is being nominated for deletion. Is it because of the doubted existence of the ball locks or their doubted use? Zotdragon 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of neither. It's because every Wikipedia article must be based on reliable sources, and this article does not have any. The links to the sex toy stores you provide do not substantiate the article's content, and the website that is now being linked to from the article merely references the term. These websites are also not reliable sources. Sandstein 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article lacks multiple independent and reliable sources to show the notability of the sexual fetish. Inkpaduta 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep There are obviously sources for these and similar devices in the appropriate places. But every time something relating to non-standard sex comes up for discussion, there are usually claims that it is not notable. Perhaps that is a way of saying Too Notable .DGG 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete one source is not convincing of inclusion. FGT2 00:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * looking for links and it seems there are a number of other devices with the same name; I think there are more, so I didn't do a disam page quite yet, or start on the articles. But this makes it very difficult to search for the meaning wanted here. Does anyone happen to know of any appearances in porn, etc? DGG 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Consolidate Are we not talking about just one sexual bondage technique? Do we need an article for every single type? Wloveral 19:40, 18 February 2007 (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.