Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branding (BDSM)

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 merge to BDSM#Physical aspects. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Branding (BDSM)[edit]

(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]
Delete -no reliable sources. Keep if reliable sources are added.- Wolfkeeper 04:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfkeeper: If you consider Aggrawal a sufficient sole source for Autosadism above, then you will have to accept this based on its inclusion in the same document.OsamaPJ (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a one word mention. There's not enough references here for an article, it needs to merge or something.- Wolfkeeper 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the distinct lack of reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BDSM#Physical_aspects. No reliable sources that do more than mention that practice exists; no discussion of the practice as such. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.