Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body belt


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Body belt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to be independently notable. No references demonstrate this to me. Merrill Stubing (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And where did you look for references? You didn't actually look anywhere at all, did you?  If you had, you wouldn't have included this item in your little spree of deletion nominations of bondage equipment, because you'd have found that bondage is largely irrelevant to how sources &mdash; such as Ellis' 1993 Introduction to fall protection, Brauer's 2006 Safety and health for engineers, and Shoemaker's and Mack's 2000 The lineman's and cableman's field manual &mdash; discuss this subject, which is as a quite ordinary item of safety equipment for linemen, cablemen, and other engineers. It's rather sad that Wikipedia editors concentrated upon bondage for five years, only realizing that this was in fact a mundane piece of equipment, and starting to refactor the article accordingly, in August 2010.  But at least the writers had the (not very good) excuse that they were focussed upon writing about bondage.  You don't have that excuse for not simply looking up what this is and seeing that it is, in fact, documented in sources that discuss quite a lot of things about it, from the government codes regulating its construction and use as a piece of safety equipment, to the safety handbooks that discuss its merits and demerits vis-&aacute;-vis a full harness as a fall arrestor. Put the effort in to look up sources yourself before nominating things for deletion.  That's what deletion policy requires of you.  That way, you won't find yourself writing such falsehoods when you claim that there are no sources discussing the subject. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly a notable concept, with thousands of hits on Google Books and hundreds on Google Scholar.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Large amounts of gbooks and gscholar hits indicate notability. Nom has not advanced any rebuttal to this or any other reason why this article should be deleted. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per OSborn.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2011 (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.