Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondage hook

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bondage hook

This seems like a confusingly generic term and one that looks Googlebombed to death by adult link farms. Perhaps there should be three separate stubs in place of this article?

—Ghakko 9 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

What would be the names of those three articles? --Easyas12c 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

At first the article was titled nose hook. It was on nose hooks and had also some information on mouth hooks and the general term face hook. When I added the rest it seemed that separate articles for all of them would have made the articles very short. They also seemed to be easier to explain as a whole. I'm not sure, if bondage hook is a good name. --Easyas12c 9 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

It's okay to have short articles. After all, that's what stubs are for.

By the way, I thought it was a nice write-up. ;-) I just thought the name was a little confusing. —Ghakko 9 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

• Keep. Encyclopedic. Pburka 9 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. The number of humans who have had the pleasure of a nose hook is too small to warrent insertion inclusion here. YouSaidYou'reADoctor,Right? 9 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  • By that logic Human spaceflight ought to be deleted. I suspect more people have used nose hooks than have travelled to space. Pburka 9 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
• Keep. Could use some clean-up though. TheMonkofDestiny
• Keep, encyclopedic. Splitting would be ok too. I wonder how User:Aaron Brenneman knows how many people have used nose hooks, and if he also knows how many people have watched porn videos featuring these items. Kappa 00:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I find the article a bit disturbing, as I'm sure the nominator did.... but this is an encylopedia. -- BMIComp (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There is no value judgment actual or implied in my vote to delete. I'm sure a nose hook, face hook, or um, other hook between consenting adults is a lovely thing. The article is NPOV and factual, so let us make no mistakes about wowserism being the problem here. The problem here is that, unlike spaceflight there is the question of interest and impact on society. GotMyShibariPatchInBoyScouts 12:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the name is confusing, move or rearrange it, but I think the article content is useful. --me_and 11:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I didn't have any issues with the content of the article and simply wanted to know if it was a good idea to split it up into separate stubs. I know I'm already abusing the VfD mechanism somewhat, but could the people who voted "keep" further indicate if they'd like a split? Sorry for the trouble, folks, and thanks for your patience. —Ghakko 11:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Next time you could use the talk page. :-) --Easyas12c 11:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If there's a consensus to keep the article, and Ghakko doesn't want it deleting himself, just rearranging, is it not worth removing it from VfD? I'd do it myself, but I don't know if there's any set procedure... --me_and 20:29, 11 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.