Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monoglove


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Monoglove

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG &#x260E; 05:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC) VG &#x260E; 05:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 05:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing to establish notability, belongs in a bondage dictionary. WJBscribe (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep or merge with similar arguments to other related articles. Admittedly, the use of this is much more specialised than bondage hoods. But they are widely discussed, though in informal sources, and sufficient information is available to fit in an article. The article seems to indicate that the closest merge is "armbinder"but that has already been redirected but I do not think really merged in--perhaps the other direction is preferable as a more generic term. -- they seems to be rather distinctive objects. I do not think it right to  have a combination article on bondage devices, as that might be very conducive to gradually reducing the amount of material.  DGG (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The article says someone wore one of these in a Madonna video. Last time I looked Madonna was popular.  If people are wearing these in a popular artist's videos then it merits coverage here.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as no sources are given to show this piece of gear is particularly notable even in context. Is it a famously popular tool? Have bondage experts written about it? Does it feature widely in "Beginner's guides to BDSM books? A definition in an informal dictionary shows it exists, but not that is notable enough to need an encylopedia article.Yobmod (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Though the article can be improved, the item's existence is not in dispute. Therefore there is no reason to delete. Ngchen (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage and discussion in independent WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 8 October 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.