Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chastity cage


 * 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 redirect to chastity belt. Chastity belt is already phrased for both genders, as well as covering the modern use in male erotic sexual denial and a historical use in Hindu religious practice. An cut-and-paste merge would thus be redundant, and the choice of how much content to move and how to structure it a content decision better left to interested editors. I have made a note of the redirect at Talk:Chastity belt, if any editors wish to transfer and source (please) content. - BanyanTree 11:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chastity cage

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article reads like an advertisement for a particular brand of sex toy (the CB-6000, which is featured in the photo on this page). There are no references in the article, which on its own terms contains no particular notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: AFD was created in a malformed form. I've fixed it. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep but suggest all images are made anonymous as in "A typical exanple of a chastity cage" not a model name. If this is a true encyclopedia then we must recognise these things exist, and have done for some time. Agree therefore with Simon Speed
 * Delete Ecoleetage (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have no idea how this is notable; then again, it may be a major plot device in porn movies for all I know. A Google search isn't promising, though. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehehehe. I want one. Delete. X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. Ghits seem to be all either commercial or blogs. -- Beloved Freak  23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral/redirect. Hmm. While this particular model of "chastity cage" is almost certainly not notable, the general concept (as an extension of the chastity belt) probably is. Redirecting there, or to erotic sexual denial, is probably the best approach if there's a consensus for deletion. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no sources that establish any notability to this device. I don't even think it is notable enough to redirect.  This is clearly an advertisement for a specific device and should be deleted.--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and generalize. There are a wide range of similar devices. DGG' (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge and redirect to chastity belt. It's simply a variation on this age old concept. Earthdirt (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, if it is missing data on other products editors could add some, there is no deadline. It seems to be a known type of toy in BDSM... not that I would know anything about it.... *shifty-eyes*. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 03:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly merge with Chastity belt or rename to Male chastity device. This is a verifiable concept, widely available in some countries (inc. North America and Europe).  That the current text is based on one or two products can be sorted out in time - the title, and therefore intent - is generic.  --Interesdom (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A fairly new device but reasonably notable. An encyclopedia is where you look up new and starnge things. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to chastity belt. Assuming this information is verifiable, it can be summed in a paragraph in that article.-Wafulz (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (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.