Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Play party (BDSM)
Tagged for sourcing for nearly 2 years... per WP:V we need to find reliable sources about this topic to continue including it in Wikipedia. Depending on the content of those sources, if found, the topic may or may not meet WP:N. But first someone needs to find some sources. --Rividian (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Per cogent nom by Rividian (talk · contribs), no more need be said. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep The subject is dealt with in all the online sources I've looked at. I've added 1 reference from a respected printed source, it may not be much but the article is little more than a stub. (I have deleted 1 "fact" that seemed dangerously untrue). It would seem that play parties are an important part of the S&M scene and most of what is written is common knowledge for those involved. A few pictures would be nice! The reason given for deletion no longer holds. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- One half page of one non-academic book isn't really enough coverage to base an entire Wikipedia article on. It would justify a redirect somewhere... but more sourcing is needed to meet WP:N. --Rividian (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remarkable - the nominator (who believed there were no references to be had) has found the reference in minutes of it being added (the half page is correct). The book is the only one I happen to own on BDSM. The subject of the article is neither a neologism nor (in context) obscure. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need to be a jerk... I said we needed to find sources, I didn't declare none existed. You still need to prove your claims like "the subject of the article is neither a neologism nor (in context) obscure" and "play parties are an important part of the S&M scene"... none of which your source does. Being a jerk to me doesn't do that... finding sources does. --Rividian (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear, was I a bit rough? Still, you have made a rather curious choice of safeword:-) --Simon Speed (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need to be a jerk... I said we needed to find sources, I didn't declare none existed. You still need to prove your claims like "the subject of the article is neither a neologism nor (in context) obscure" and "play parties are an important part of the S&M scene"... none of which your source does. Being a jerk to me doesn't do that... finding sources does. --Rividian (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remarkable - the nominator (who believed there were no references to be had) has found the reference in minutes of it being added (the half page is correct). The book is the only one I happen to own on BDSM. The subject of the article is neither a neologism nor (in context) obscure. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- One half page of one non-academic book isn't really enough coverage to base an entire Wikipedia article on. It would justify a redirect somewhere... but more sourcing is needed to meet WP:N. --Rividian (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP is not a HOWTO guide. The source linked appears to not exactly be a scholarly assessment of the field, but more of a hotwtoguide itself. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep standard in the field for a very long time, enough to be known by the less specialized. I dont really want to go poking around in the alt.sex archives but if someone does, the quality of the material could be improved considerably. DGG (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Valid topic, but needs expansion and referencing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the referencing? It still needs to be found before we can properly keep the article. So far two years of looking have yielded a half page of a book that's of little encyclopedic value --Rividian (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Most articles of this size have less referencing than this. A quick search on google will show that this not some obscure term. And though the book may be popular, Dr. Brame is an expert on the subject. You were able to check the reference within minutes of me finding it. If you actually want to improve the Wikipedia, I suggest you find a few more references rather than trying to delete the article. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Google web results are extremely unreliable and really irrelevent unless proven otherwise. Per WP:V the burden is on the people wanting to keep content to find sources... I'm nominating it for deletion because I've made a good-faith look for sources and found nothing compelling, and people in this AFD haven't found much either. Arguments that there are references out there, somewhere, aren't enough to keep an article in Wikipedia... actually finding those sources is what's needed. --Rividian (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Most articles of this size have less referencing than this. A quick search on google will show that this not some obscure term. And though the book may be popular, Dr. Brame is an expert on the subject. You were able to check the reference within minutes of me finding it. If you actually want to improve the Wikipedia, I suggest you find a few more references rather than trying to delete the article. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the referencing? It still needs to be found before we can properly keep the article. So far two years of looking have yielded a half page of a book that's of little encyclopedic value --Rividian (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, as the article stands it is sub standard but it appears clear it can be improved to a point of being worthy thus the keep. Mathmo Talk 04:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP is not a HOWTO guide. Razorflame 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Is original research, not based on reliable sources. If reliable sources are found, recreate the article, adding the sources first, and make sure content is derived from those sources. Note WP:NOTHOWTO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 3 May 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.
