Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shackled (magazine)


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Shackled (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:MEDIA. Sources provide only incidental mention, no SIGCOV at all. Rogermx (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Rogermx, can you explain how you came to that conclusion? The snippet from Prostitution and Pornography only shows four and a half sentences, and it looks like it's going into some detail, but I can't tell how long the passage goes on for. I'm not sure how to see the other three sources, but you seem positive that they only provide incidental mention. If you have more information about those sources, can you share what you've learned? — Toughpigs (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You are right about the last three sources - I could not read them. However, none of the titles are about the magazine - they are all serious pieces on pornography.  In addition, ff you search Google, there is nothing about the magazine.  I suggest you provide us with some proof that we can all see that this subject is notable.  Rogermx (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the later Russell source, I can free preview about 18 pages in the section this citation says this magazine is mentioned in. Likely, the magazine is mentioned as the source of something close to the hundredth photo examined. The section itself is about the photos and any accompanying texts, with sources mentioned as part of academic rigour and proof that they are appearing in circulated magazines. Actually, control-F lets me find any mentions of 'Shackled' even on pages that can't be previewed. This is in fact the case. The discussion is about how real violence is endorsed from the likely fact that no makeup artist would take the time to fake the bruises depicted in the image. Shackled is mentioned exactly one time in listing the source of the imagine. (Well, the magazine is listed one time, the word comes up twice more in the context of images of shackled women, and once more in the books index to find where the term is mentioned should one have only access to the physical copy.) And, notably, the magazine is not mentioned in the earlier section "Circulation Rates for Selected Pornographic Magazines", and even a mention there wouldn't demonstrate notability so much as common circulation.Nic T R (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. From the comments above and my read-through of the Prostitution and Pornography, it seems that this magazine is not notable, and in fact has garnered discussion (if it can even be said to have "garnered discussion") only for being an ordinary example of a widespread phenomenon. The description in Prostitution and Pornography seems particularly telling: it is introduced as being "one of roughly thirty-five such magazines distributed by Lyndon Distributors" (p. 267). In order words, nothing sets it apart except that it happened to have a catchy name or a relevant headline for this author's commentary on pornography. ~ oulfis 🌸 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify -- I was able to access the entirety of Prostitution and Pornography and read both sections where the author discusses Shackled at some length (p. 267-8 and p. 287). In both cases the actual discussion is focused on how to interpret pornographic images of sexual submission, for which Shackled provides an "illustrative" (p. 286) example, but nothing about the magazine itself is presented as noteworthy. ~ oulfis 🌸 (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2020 (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.