Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogtie


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hogtie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is almost entirely unsourced.  J N  466  21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * Keep – there's enough information and sources out there to turn it into a proper article, albeit brief. In particular, it can cover the alleged issue of asphyxiation. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here are some more book sources that could be of use in building up this article:  . Being unsourced is not a valid argument for deletion unless it's a BLP.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  10:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of sources already given, no idea why this was relisted.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Inadequate reasons for deletion. AFD is not cleanup.  Warden (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT - Tying together every use of the word in rodeo, confinement, torture, and sexual bondage doesn't change the fact that these are just dictionary terms. Notes on asphyxiation danger doesn't change this fact and tends towards making this into a how to. If hogties are notably used in the context of rodeo, confinement, torture, whatever then perhaps a subsection should be discussed in the proper article, but listing every use of the word tends toward WP:LISTN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep  There's been significant coverage in reliable sources on the controversy surrounding the safety of this procedure in law-enforcement contexts.  That's more than a definition.  A couple of the sources evidencing this are paywalled (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83808235.html, http://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/Abstract/1998/09000/Reexamination_of_Custody_Restraint_Position_and.1.aspx).  --j⚛e deckertalk 14:07, 2 July 2012 (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.