Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbow bondage (3rd 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   redirect to Bondage (BDSM). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Elbow bondage
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable term bondage unsupported by reliable sources to suggest it is a notable topic. 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. Has been recreated twice (albeit with sufficient different content not to qualify for G4 speedy) after two successive AfDs with a delete outcome. I propose that the article is deleted and salted against recreation. WJBscribe (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT per nom, can't really sum it up any better. Not notable in any way, shape or form, not a valid redirect term, etc. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Deleted in 2007. Deleted in 2008. Oh, goody, now we have pictures, that changes everything. Not. Still non-notable. Leave a redirect to Bondage (BDSM) if so desired... Carrite (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep: A cursory Google search shows at least two books with more than a trivial amount of coverage of the topic. Hence, one might posit that it satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria. It also looks uncomfortable. Praemonitus (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Link them here please. Anything that's like "Bonding 101" or whatever is routine and is unusable. Also, how is it looking uncomfortable relevant in any way? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) (2) WP:GNG has nothing to say about requiring non-routine sources, so your assertion seems flawed. (3) It's not, but then this isn't a court of law. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bondage (BDSM) or delete. Unnotable by itself. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bondage (BDSM) as a possible search term. Cavarrone (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea  db  eef  23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Sounds weird, but apparently a real and distinct paraphilia.   Wikipedia should be inclsive. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bondage (BDSM), worth mentioning but doesn't deserve its own article... --Rubyface (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Rope bondage. It has some worthwhile points. Enthusiast (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bondage (BDSM). Verifiable information, but lacking secondary source discussion required for a stand alone article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2013 (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.