Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogtie 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hogtie bondage

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article contains no sources. No reliable evidence to confirm that this is indeed a notable facet of BDSM. Wikipedia has no need for such exhaustive detail of every conceivable sub-fetish - without reliable sources that discuss this issue its pure original research. WjBscribe 23:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The reference issue has been addressed.The warning about positional asphixia is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubleflash (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- sounds real, I'd give it a page.JJJ999 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This reason is so nonsensical it doesn't even get an entry on Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions...JJJ999, the inclusion of material on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and also assertions of notability, not assertions of existance.  Daniel  01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Hogtie - Right action, wrong rationale. Hogtie use in bondage is well documented. But hogtie bondage (as opposed to suspension, mummification etc) is just a term for one way to do rope-immobilisation. It's got very little more to say that wouldnt readily fit under Hogtie. Second relevant reason: Articles covering very similar themes don't always need 2 articles, for minor variants. Communal approaches concur that items may be verifiable by reliable sources and yet not merit a stand-alone article. FT2 (Talk 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect into Bondage (BDSM) Fails WP:V and WP:NN and seems to be bondage-cruft. -- DarkFalls talk 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and redirect as noted by FT2. This is the action which will have the best result for Wikipedia's quality. A brief mention in the main article is sufficient.  Daniel  01:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, I'm not saying it constitutes significant coverage, but google books suggests that there are books out there which do provide the kind of detail shown in the article - so I don't think its a case of WP:OR, just a badly sourced but otherwise plausible article. See this for example, which alludes to the 'technique' whilst describing a different one. Ok, ew and stuff... --TreeKittens 03:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My reasoning above was simplified obviously, the above one will do if you want a substitute. It "sounds real" but based on facts of course...JJJ999 03:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always found it fun, but nevertheless redirect to Hogtie, with closing admin or AN Other to see if there's anything reliably sourced and notable that could be merged. If not, just redirect. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Complicated --  Merging to bondage sounds like a good idea, but then Hogtie has a big old Hogtie bondage section. for some reason???????? I personally think the Hogtie bondage section shouldn't be in Hogtie to begin with and the section in there is terrible and it even rambles on with "The group Turkish Hezbollah is known to hogtie its victims while torturing them." whatever that is about.  This hogtie bondage article is much much much much better in comparison. I think the hogtie bondage section from hogtie should be moved into hogtie bondage and then hogtie bondage if it still is bad be merged into bondage. William Ortiz 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Complicated per William Ortiz. The "references" are not encyclopedic, so they are not true references. I suggest tagging the article insufficiently referenced. By the way, Could anyone with access to OTRS please verify that images that link to Template:Img-confirmation have had a permission email from http://www.aussieropeworks.com/ (clean home page, but do not proceed any further if you do not or cannot legally watch adult-oriented materials) to OTRS? I also have to ask any OTRS volunteer to be sure that Image:Suspension-bb-lorelei-9016-jonwoods.jpg really has permission from http://www.bedroombondage.com/ (clean home page again) logged while the source site does not give blanket permission. Without logged permission at OTRS, I cannot transwiki any remaining bondage images from here to Commons.--Jusjih 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (adult admin here and on Commons)
 * Keep per William Ortiz. It sounds like a lot of cleanup and moving around of content is needed before we can decide to delete this article.  Let the person doing the cleanup decide if a merge is needed leaving a redirect.  Deletion at this time would simply make the cleanup process more difficult. Vegaswikian 05:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick Google search shows that hogties are quite common in bondage fiction. It's difficult to believe that there are no sources. A merger of every bondage article to Bondage would produce something totally unwieldy, and a merger to hogtie would also be unwieldy; indeed, the article seems to have originated as a split-off from hogtie. Is it claimed that bondage should not be covered on Wikipedia?--Bedivere 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep one or the other, and merge Hogtie into this longer article, or this one into the more specific title. Then redirect the deleted article into the remaining article.  Why? Neither article is well sourced, but as a concept they are notable, although close enough to warrant a single article, and lots of references must exist somewhere on The Internet or literature. Bearian&#39;sBooties 19:16, 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.