Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair 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. No references to reliable sources. The "keep" opinions do not address this.  Sandstein  16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable term. Although it is obviously possible to bind someone by their hair, there is nothing to suggest tying someone up in this manner deserves separate coverage. WJBscribe (talk) 03:26, 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 hair is more notable than binding any other limb, joint or protein. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - term exists but is not notable or unique to the practice described. Ghits exist, but I can't find any coverage of the practice that asserts any notability to it. GNews hits refer to something else, as do gbooks hits. If it's this hard to find any discussion of it, it's probably not notable. I can be convinced otherwise with reliable sources, but this is the second AfD for this article, and they do not appear to be forthcoming...  Frank  |  talk  11:37, 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, it is notable, even if barely so, and it does "deserve coverage" if it is notable.  Atom (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I found this from the last AFD http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13118 Atom (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Dang, they better not delete this! If they start deleting "how to" articles written solely from the perspective of personal experience and commercially-linked photos (3 women, no men), without so much as one footnote, then what will Wikipedia look like after these types of articles are gone? Holy crap, imagine the consequences of them going from 2,000,000 back to 1,000,000 articles!"
 * Compelling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Although this started as more of a sexist concept, women tending to have longer hair, this is a growing fetish arena for all sexes and like so many others has videos, websites, forums, etc. devoted to the subject. Not my thing per se but that's no reason to delete it.  Banj e  b oi   16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, so fails notability. Recommend deleting and salting to prevent re-creation. Edison2 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable term. A google search reveals no reliable sources. —  Wen li  (reply here) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete several books using the term don't even mean it in the same sense as this. They mean recreating the same hairdo your mum had!:)  the same with the news mentions .  The only book using it is a self-published work of fiction, which simply puts it on a list of wierd things people do.  Sticky Parkin 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because something's weird doesn't mean it should be deleted (Cleveland steamer).--Whipmaster (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is an entry in the Informed Consent BDSM Dictionary, which shows that the BDSM community regard the concept as notable. There are also two external links.  if Sticky parkin has found another meaning, he may create a new article, but that is no reason to delete this one.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:58, 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) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue isn't, in this case, the notability as much as the verifiability. At this point the article has to be rewritten to show the many terms used for the practice, a bit of the history and reliable sources supporting that it's covered as a subject. I know it's notable enough and you may but that doesn't sway the other folks here enough. Banj e  b oi   21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kansascitypedia or not, a subject is considered notable if it meets the criteria in the notability guidelines; a mayor of a city is notable due to the media attention they gain (significant, reliable coverage, independent of the subject). "Hair bondage" does not have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. So even though it is notable in some circles (or should I say chains?) it does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 14:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the comments above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not be relying on dictionaries as sources, either. RFerreira (talk) 22:10, 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)


 * 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.