Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunplay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Will move it to Gunplay (BDSM) since that got support after it was suggested. Someone else gets to write the article about the other type of gunplay. Meantime, this will be a redirect. -Splashtalk 21:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gunplay

I imagine there will be some opposition to this afd, but I nominated it because it gets about 1100 Google hits. Of those, about 200 are verbatim copies of the article, and from a scan of the other results, it looks as if many others aren't even BDSM related. This is the fringes of the fringe-not that there's anything wrong with that-but it doesn't warrant an article. Paul 02:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Google: bdsm gunplay -"actual or sometimes" still gets a good 900 results or so. It's a sexual neologism, which is questionable, but so is, say, furvert. Ashibaka (tock) 03:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; this article existed here for over two years, and as Paul points out was copied to some 200 other sites. That by itself should grant it the right to stay here. The activity is, indeed, a "fringe-of-a-fringe", but the term itself is well known in the BDSM community. Owen× ☎ 05:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as BDSM-cruft, article of questionable verifiability. -- Kjkolb 06:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Owen×. It's definitely factual. MCB 06:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Are those verbatim copies mirrors/copyvios or is the article itself copied? - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely factual. BTW, shouldn't there be a vfd template on this article? Grutness...wha? 13:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete for exactly the reasoning used by Owen to keep. WP:NOT a forum to spread ideas or definitions. Verifiability seems to be a question if hundreds of the Google hits are WP mirrors and many others are BDSM sites that copied the WP content. Did this concept and term exist in widespread (if furtive) use in the decades before the article appeared? (If documented, I'll change vote to "keep".) Or was this a neologism whose early advocate used WP for a non-policy purpose? Barno 14:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

(Changed vote to weak keep, strong move and disambig per documentation below.) Barno 17:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

    • The term was already in use in the 90s, long before it appeared here. Here are a couple out of many examples, taken from soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm: [1], [2]. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I believe it goes back at least to the '80s and alt.sex.bondage, but I want to stress to others that these references are for verification; the term is not a Usenet neologism, but has existed in the real-world BDSM community for several decades. It probably exists in (hardcopy) books on the subject, but that will take some research to verify. MCB 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there are a bunch more copies out there, what proof do we have that this was the first? Are we sure it's not a copyvio? --Jacqui M Schedler 15:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • With respect, that's true for uncountable thousands of WP articles; sometimes that can be disproved by stepping through the editing history, or by contacting the original author. MCB 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an advocacy site, nor an advertising medium, and neologisms are inappropriate content. Geogre 18:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see any advocacy or advertising in the article, and I think that OwenX and I have made a good argument that it's not a neologism. MCB 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a term refering to a BSDM sub-culture. I've heard this outside the Wikipedia arena many years before WP even existed, so I'm not sure neologism is the correct term for this. That having been said, the reasons being cited for keeping this article are rather weak. That this text was copied is no reason to keep it. The examples from soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm are a start in establishing this term as one of notability. I'd say the article could stand a cleanup if it survives. Though I tend to lean Keep, no vote for now.--Isotope23 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)--Isotope23 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Something needs to be done about the title. One dictionary defines "gunplay" as "A shooting of guns with intent to inflict harm," another as "the shooting of small arms with intent to scare or kill." This article is not about the standard meaning of "gunplay" but about a specialized, technical meaning within the BDSM community. The title should be something like "Gunplay (BDSM)". Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard the term for getting on ten years, and it predates that. However, I agree with User:Dpbsmith that this ought to be at Gunplay (BDSM) and a more general article at Gunplay. —Morven 05:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BDSM-cruft. / Peter Isotalo 16:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Move → Gunplay (BDSM) as per Dpbsmith. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-11 T 18:33:43 Z
  • Weak keep, strong move and disambiguate. -Sean Curtin 19:25, September 11, 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.