Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supplicant (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 delete. I have closed this as "delete" rather than "merge/redirect" because there is no evidence that the term is actually in wide use in the BDSM community, and proponents of the article have had two weeks to come up with sources. Retaining it as a redirect would be misleading and violate WP:V. --MCB 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Supplicant (BDSM)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, no references Hornet35 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and if it true merge the sentence with BDSM --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  09:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak DELETE KEEP (salvagable). I am a member of the BDSM community and I don't necessarily agree with the definition in the article, but if he/she can back it up with referenced sources and expanded beyond a dicdef, the article is salvagable. You may call me "Mistress BaldDee" 12:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Top and bottom in sex and BDSM. DWaterson 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Include it in BDSM and develop there, depending on sources.  I don't see it as enough for a separate article at this point, and it's been there since May 2006. — Becksguy 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Citi Cat   ♫  13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: it has no place here.--Rambutan (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per User:Becksguy. Sounds like a reasonable solution to preserve the information, which is valid and encyclopedic, but not developed enough at the moment to support its own entry. If at some point the section on supplicants grows to a point where it can support its own well-sourced, contextual article, then I have no prejudice against it's future re-creation. LaMenta3 22:20, 6 September 2007 (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.