Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbow bondage


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Elbow bondage

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely lacking in references. No secondary material to confirm that this is a notable element of BDSM. Without sources fails WP:V and amounts to pure original research. WjBscribe 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This has been around for over two years yet there's not a single secondary source. The pictures all come from some obscure porn website. A Google search reveals a mirror of the article and no written material. Spellcast 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete its WP:OR  Sasha Callahan   03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR Hardnfast 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wjbscribe but please do not censor this discussion if it gets heated. :-P   Bur nt sau ce  22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to satisfy WP:V. Edison 03:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and ask for an expert review. What exactly constitutes a reliable source for a subject like this?  Bacchiad 13:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to create an article based upon reliable sources, they are welcome to do that at any time. This article however should be deleted for the reasons stated by the nominator and everyone else above.  Reliable sources applies to all articles, not just articles based on subjects "like this".   Bur nt sau ce  18:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you find that a fetish, paraphilia or sexual practice is written up in the Kinsey Report,the writings of Masters and Johnson, Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing  or the mainstream press, then such multiple substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources should be seen as satisfying notability requirements. If it is referenced only to the writer's personal experience and fantasy life, then it would likely be deleted as original research. If it is only referenced to blogs or personal websites lacking identified contributors and an editorial board, it would be likely to get deleted. Edison 01:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge Hit the random article button and almost every article you find on a topic that's not a person and not something on the internet won't have any sources. I've seen them gone up for AFDs and it's basically a consistent keep all the time and the unsourced articles are kept and that's that so it's pretty much prescedent--here's an example. There also should be some reliable sources found at these two links  . This article does need to be cleaned up though and all unverifiable stuff removed and if too small then merged with one of those other bondage thingies. William Ortiz 21:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Google search links, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid criterion for retaining unsourced material, especially when said material has been listed for deletion and reliable third party sources cannot be located.  Bur nt sau ce  21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was partly complaining that non-notable stuff remains up just because lots of editors like it. William Ortiz 23:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator, SqueakBox 18:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 19:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Llajwa 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete after this extensive discussion, based on WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Bearian&#39;sBooties 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep William Ortiz offers many references that show that this is a notable topic in bondage circles.--Bedivere 22:12, 8 October 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.