Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subspace (BDSM)


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Subspace (BDSM)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Insufficiently notable term and a likely neologism. Article’s only reference is a personal essay, despite article having been tagged with refimprove for almost three years. Any verifiable information contained in this article should instead be included at the BDSM article, if it is not already. — Satori Son 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * keep another standard concept, widely used in nonfictional and fictional accounts.  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable source to establish notability of concept.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS. Joal Beal (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: term certainly seems to be in common use (even after you discard stuff sourced from Wikipedia itself): see http://books.google.com/books?q=bdsm+%22sub+space%22, http://books.google.com/books?q=bdsm+subspace The article needs better sourcing, but preemptive deletion is not the answer. -- Karada (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - after discussion, we have kept lots of odd articles. There is no evidence it is a neologism, and is in fact well-reported in the media. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - This is the second common BDSM term I have found under AfD attack. I have added sources, again.  I'd add more but sources from this underground sexual genre use sites that are blacklisted from WP.  The censorship people have this well guarded from two directions.  But there are plenty of other sources and mentions of the concept--which is the goal of a BDSM bottom.  The fact that I am finding multiple attacks on the core definitions of the subject show an ulterior motive--to censor or remove this kind of information.  Taken as a whole, this is a dangerous trend for WP to undertake. OsamaPJ (talk) 22:50, 11 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.