Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subspace (BDSM) (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. A Google search indicates that this is a relatively widely used term that has also been used in books about this subculture, e.g.. On a notability basis, there might be a case for an article. However, the article makes claims about it being a psychological state and its supposed physiological basis. Such content requires sources that meet the verifiability requirements of WP:MEDRS, which are not present in the article currently. From a verifiability point of view, the consensus to delete as emerging from this discussion has therefore a valid basis in policy. This article may be userfied if anybody wants to try to improve the sourcing, which would be required before recreating the article.  Sandstein  10:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Subspace (BDSM)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has never had reliable sources. Survived an AFD more than three years ago with the claim that actual sources exist, and yet it still lacks anything like good source. I don't care if some editors seem to think it is some real and significant thing, it needs multiple reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage to have an article here. More than enough time to improve it has been given. Right now there's nothing here worth saving, and, worse than that, looks like it's in full on woo territory and should not remain per WP:FRINGE DreamGuy (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to BDSM or Delete. I agree with the nom.  This really, really needs some strong sourcing to survive, as the insinuation that BDSM can stimulate a higher level of consciousness (or whatever it's trying to state) seems very WP:FRINGEy, and the medical aspects are completely unsupported by any citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There are dozens, if not hundreds of references for this topic. Every reliable reference book on BDSM makes reference to subspace. My time constraints limit my ability to add such references. Suggested sources include: Screw The Roses, Give Me The Thorns; So You Want To Be Kinky; So You Want To Be Kinkier; SM 101; The New Bottoming Book; The New Topping Book; Different Loving; etc.

The references exist and are readily available. The only issue is someone finding the time to add them.

The suggestion that this article is woo stuff is nonsense. It's the kind of reaction that comes up when people attempt to address articles on topics for which they lack adequate knowledge to properly understand them. Anyone who has solid knowledge of alternative sexuality is aware of the reality of subspace. Anyone qualified to review this article objectively would add citations, rather than suggest deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDNRopemaster (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Until "Anyone who has solid knowledge of alternative sexuality..." actually adds as least one of these supposed "hundreds" of WP:RS, it is "objective" to look at this article and see that it has only the merest passing acquaintance with notability.  Right now, unfortunately, a personal essay on a BDSM website, a scattering of citation needed tags, and a plethora of pseudo-medical terminology don't add up to a notable concept. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - Essentially unsourced dictionary definition of a neologism or esoteric hobbyist phrase. Carrite (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2014 (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.