Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk-aware consensual kink

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. W.marsh 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risk-aware consensual kink

Risk-aware consensual kink (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Totally unencyclopedic and highly inappropriate Skobelief 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's at least as encyclopedic as many other articles. It explains the term, where the term comes from and why, and what it refers to. It also explains that it doesn't bar it from legal prosecution and explains that the term doesn't refer specifically to particular acts, although that's what's considered... Given there's no porn, no graphic descriptions, I also don't see how it's inapproriate. Cantras 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Also edited the tag so the "this article's entry" comes here instead of a blank page. Cantras 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Keep" I assume the objection is to the (controvercial sexual) context surrounding the RACK philosophy/idea. However, this entry does not contain any information which would shock or mislead a young person, or a person sheltered enough to be not yet aware of that context. I do see this entry as plainly factual, potentially edifying for one who comes accross the term in research or recreational reading, and carefully non-explicit. The RACK scene, like many controvercial counter-culture behaviors, does exist and people may want to know about it. It is not necessary that those people agree with RACKs endorsers or participants. Nor does this entry advocate for such endorsement or participation. In fact, knowlege of the existence of such a scene could reduce the risk of someone "unwittingly" entering it... or being duped into it. 70.23.228.75 05:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)AC

Keep. — As per Cantras's comments. This does indeed seem to be a valid article. Also, it appears to me from looking at Skobelief's previous contributions that this AfD request is POV pushing. Robotman1974 22:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment in reply to Robotman1974 Yes, there is some pov in it and thinking beings cannot be without it. However I think it is better than that pov, which pushes every shade of masturbation, penetration, foreplay, oral sex etc. as encylopedic stuff. I have a feeling that you are falling prey to an organised conspiracy of the detractors ( who are flocking around enterprises like Encylopedia Dramatica) to push obscenity and sexual content into Wikipedia. Skobelief 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. The questions are whether this is a notable term which we can write about without original research using reliable sources consistent with Wikipedia's verification policy. JoshuaZ 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - per Cantras and Robotman1974. —Hanuman Das 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I have concerns about the notability of the term which I would like to see addressed but it does turn up a fair number of google hits. Someone should take time to source it better. JoshuaZ 04:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agree about the sourcing, but firmly believe this to be a valid article based on searches, etc. Do not see any reason under policy or guidelines to delete. Shimeru 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article has been revised to expand sourcing, and to improve the prose. --RoninBK_ETC 09:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Varano 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- The distinction between SSC (Safe, Sane and Consensual) and RACK is a key point of debate in kink communities, and many issues of personal philosophy are centered on an understanding of what the terms mean. This is very basic to knowledge of modern BDSM. Chris Hall 17:00, 18 November 2006 (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.