Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbow bondage (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mr.Z-man 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Elbow bondage
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable term. Although it is obviously possible to bind someone by the elbow, there is nothing to suggest tying someone up in this manner deserves separate coverage. WJBscribe (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: this term is not notable. It is also possible to bind many other human appendages and there is no indication that binding the elbows is more notable than binding any other limb or joint. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 04:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable in itself. Granted, there is adequate RS for a Wiktionary entry and this paragraph in an existing bondage article. HG | Talk 10:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - term exists but is a non-notable dict def, and WP is not a how-to guide even if I can think of some people who oh, never mind... Frank  |  talk  11:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." Sorry, folks, you'll have to learn about elbow bondage on your own! Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - survived AFD in 2007, bringing it again so soon is really a type of forum shopping. Merging with Bondage, or other articles would be fine.  Regarding earlier comments, even if fringe, it is notable, which is why it has references.  Atom (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it was deleted as a result of the previous AfD. This is a new article subsequently created about the same topic... WJBscribe (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I found this from the last AFD http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13118 Atom (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found that also, by Googling "Elbow bondage"; it intrigued me that an irrelevant link appeared in second place during a search for an, apparently, notable topic - surely if this were notable, a commentary link would have been drowned out by reliable sources? ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, in fact I believe this could be speedied as the recreation of previously-deleted (via AFD consensus) content. Esteffect (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently a new article about a nonnotable subject which was deleted fro lack of multiple reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. Since this one also lacks such sources, delete it again and salt to prevent recreation. Edison2 (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete- completely non-notable thing that barely appears in WP:RS- this is the only mention I could find, and that's a passing one. [ [[User:Sticky Parkin|Sticky]] Parkin 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete no one cares about that completely unimportant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have provided a substantial reference from one of the best-known published books on BDSM. There is also an article in the Informed Consent BDSM Dictionary; while that originally derived from the old Wikipedia article, the presence of the article in the dictionary shows that the BDSM community regard it as notable.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A mention in one in-subject book hardly establishes notability. Just because it is notable to the BDSM community does not mean it deserves a Wikipedia article; this isn't Wipipedia. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would anyone argue that just because the Mayor of some American city is notable in that city, he does not deserve an article because this isn't Kansascitypedia?--Whipmaster (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mandsford. I have no objection to the subject but there are no reliable publications currently available to support an encyclopedic document at the moment.  RFerreira (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I referenced a reliable publication sufficient to source at least a stub.--Whipmaster (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it were up to me this would have been speedily delete as a repost and sent to deletion review if there were any questions. JBsupreme (talk) 23:35, 3 September 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.