Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other World Kingdom

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. — Scientizzle 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other World Kingdom

Other World Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. The "Kingdom" has been extensively covered in BDSM community websites, blogs, and usenet[1]; it does not appear to have any significant coverage in reliable published sources. It appears not to have been in any news articles, [2] although it was mentioned briefly in two BDSM books by one author.[3] Thus it appears to fail the notability test. Absent reliable, independent sources, the article has been written "in-universe" in style, copied substantially from the "Kingdom's" own website. [4] Based on the sources available, it doesn't seem that a properly neutral and verifiable article can be written at this time.

(Please note that this discussion is NOT about the OWK's practices, ideology, hawtness, coolness, or moral character: the question here is the lack of independent reliable sources.) <eleland/talkedits> 08:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and eliminate fancruft. The OWK is quoted in the German BDSM dictionary, the book SM-Lexikon by Arne Hoffmann, a notable German journalist and author, as demonstrated in its amazon.de entry : http://www.amazon.de/SM-Lexikon-Arne-Hoffmann/dp/3896025333 . Here is a quote from amazon.de : typische Einrichtungen der deutschen und internationalen SM-Szene (Datenschlag, AG S/MÖff, Schlagworte, Folsom Street Fair, Other World Kingdom, Society of Janus) This excerpt puts OWK at the same level of notability as Folsom Street Fair and Society of Janus, both of which have wikipedia entries. More generally, for mainstream references to BDSM related topics, you should look at German language sources, which are quite extensive about these topics. Hektor (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Really not notable.Yopie 10:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the nom. admits that it is important, but think the absence of conventional sources prevents an adequate article. But the nature of the sources will depend on the subject, and the ones here are appropriate. V is a policy, but RS, deliberately, is a guideline meant to be used flexibly. DGG (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Verifiable. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2008 (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.