Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branding (BDSM): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:57, 13 May 2010

Branding (BDSM)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think you are mixing too things. Deletion should not be decided on the quality of the article, BUT on the interest of the subject. The article is poorly sourced, ok, too short, but this is a notable and interesting topic, from the standpoint of BDSM activities. So I think it should be kept.

PS : it seems you have started a massive deletion campaign of BDSM related articles. Don't be surprised if you read me saying keep in other articles for exactly the same reasons. Hektor (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BDSM#Physical_aspects cant find any material strictly on the branding aspect but there is a lot of info in general titles on the subject. --Savonneux (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Hektor, this is a mass deletion campaign. The article now has no less than 8 outside sources. If you do any exploration at all, there is a lot of material available on the subject. As I discussed elsewhere, how much is enough? You aren't going to get a lot of mainstream coverage. Go into the community, where anonymity is frequently required, there is tons of material.OsamaPJ (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 <hr style="width:50%;" />
 :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
-*'''Keep'''  I agree with Hector, this is a mass deletion campaign.  The article now has no less than 8 outside sources.  If you do any exploration at all, there is a lot of material available on the subject.  As I discussed elsewhere, how much is enough?  You aren't going to get a lot of mainstream coverage.  Go into the community, where anonymity is frequently required, there is tons of material.[[User:OsamaPJ|OsamaPJ]] ([[User talk:OsamaPJ|talk]]) 02:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''  I agree with Hektor, this is a mass deletion campaign.  The article now has no less than 8 outside sources.  If you do any exploration at all, there is a lot of material available on the subject.  As I discussed elsewhere, how much is enough?  You aren't going to get a lot of mainstream coverage.  Go into the community, where anonymity is frequently required, there is tons of material.[[User:OsamaPJ|OsamaPJ]] ([[User talk:OsamaPJ|talk]]) 02:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)