Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali's teeth bracelet (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. I'm going to close this, even though I participated in the discussion, because I'm closing against my own opinion, an opinion I continue to hold (but I do not now have time to find the necessary sources myself, and nobody else has done so) The consensus is clearly against  keeping this without them   DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Kali's teeth bracelet
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article does not have sources and does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. Suggest merge into a more general article on such devices. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Stillwaterising (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable.  All the hits on Google Books derive from Wikipedia, zero hits on Google Scholar, zero hits on Google News Archive.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep until and unless someone explains what has meaningfully changed since the last AFD nomination (which this article survived). AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing that hasn't happened is that two years after the comment at that AFD "Sources are findable", no-one has found any reliable sources. That adds considerable weight to the case above for non-notability.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Chastity cage. Joal Beal (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * delete. i don't see notability. and wouldn't this hurt? Qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's actually supposed to be a kind of "bed of nails" effect which partially mitigates things... AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. Widespread presence on the web and in some sorts of fiction, & I think known in the RW also. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But we need reliable sources. Web sites are not necessarily reliable, fiction hardly ever.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The KTB is actually pretty widely known about among people interested in chastity belts (though only used by a small minority)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And how does this address the question of reliable sources? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it did, as such. I was talking about the real world. AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So irrelevant to this discussion then? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat unfortunate when Wikipedia declares the real world to be irrelevant to Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Verifiability. If reliable sources have not been found since the last AfD over two years ago, we must assume they don't exist. We can only keep saying "sources are findable" for so long. — Satori Son 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - due to an apparent lack of any reliable sources. Per Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"; the last discussion was more than two years ago, ample time for any interested person to find any sources that might exist. Guest9999 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete while its obvious that the device exists, has been made by various people, and discussed widely on blogs, etc, we dont have any verifiable, reliable sources that refer to it. i can guess one reason no online or brick (brick house?) retailer would sell it, and no one would manufacture it: product liability, infection, death, oh what joy. id rather be a cigarette manufacturer, or sell broken refridgerators as children's toys. unless we get a good source, this is like an amorphous 4chan meme that cant be pinned down. maybe they should call it the Cheshire Cat bracelet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources found. Epbr123 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Leaning keep  Found an entry for this in "Bracelet: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases". As a matter of fact, this entry was copied and pasted in its entirety to create this article back in 2005. Since then its been edited quite a bit so I don't think it constitutes copyright infringement.  Them  From  Space  17:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's the other way round. These books are derived from Wikipedia articles and so cannot be used as sources.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. So delete since no reliable sources have been produced.  Them  From  Space  17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable and no reliable sources are available. Neitherday (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2010 (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.