Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic spanking

Add links
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 keep. John254 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic spanking[edit]

Erotic spanking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong Delete. This page contains much sexuality in its contents and quite a few inappropriate images. A normal encyclopedia would not have an article about this ridiculous erotic spanking. I think it is safe to assume that not too many users view this article, except those who are... unlike most, no offense. It is quite useless, in my humble opinion, and merely taking up space in Wikipedia. I did not expect many people to object. I am sorry if I have done something wrong by proposing the deletion of this article, it is just that I did not expect too many people to oppose my opinion. Please consider my suggestion to remove this article. I doubt it will greatly impact your life in a negative way if this article is gone, but I fear it is possible that the same cannot be said for others, especially younger users. Please support my suggestion. Thanks! Uioh 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Uio, I have pondered your words for a long, LONG, time, and I have finally decided to side by you. However, I am sorry, but please do not get your hopes up too much, as I am still pondering and my vote could change at any time. Thanks. Ntyfj 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

(Changed mind to Neutral)

  • Strong Keep. This has been nominated at least twice today with no reason specified at any time. Granted, this article could stand some clean-up and/or citations as noted, but it has existed for almost 5 years. Unless someone can provide a legitimate reason to delete this article, it should stay. HalJor 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic, adequately sourced. I would advise Uioh and HalJor to change their opinions to "Delete" and "Keep" as appropriate, incidentally. Tevildo 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Speedy - it's a legitimate topic. Wikipedia is not censored for content. Tunnels of Set 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but it should be? Why ever reason not? Especially if at least one-fourth of its users ARE minors. If this article was removed, how would that harm Wikipedia or you? It COULD offend minors and their parents that use Wikipedia perhaps daily! At the very least, please remove the images, please! Are they necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uioh (talk • contribs) 21:12, January 3, 2007
      • I'm sorry, but this is one of the foundation principles of Wikipedia. It's the responsibility of parents to prevent their children looking at "offensive" material, not for us to act as childminders. Tevildo 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this subject is quite a bit more notable than autocunnilingus. Wikipedia is not censored. Lyrl Talk C 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, but what do you mean by "notable"? Uioh 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Strong Keep per Wikipedia is not censored. The article needs more citations for verifiability, but the subject matter is certainly notable. -- Kesh 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - exactly as per Kesh. Chovain 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but definitely looks like cleanup is needed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. You can't nominate an article for deletion because it doesn't violate a Wikipedia policy. —Chowbok ☠ 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --- RockMFR 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. Akihabara 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. Appears to be a part of our BDSM coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Modesty is not a reason for deletion. Danny Lilithborne 10:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be featured. Anomo 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep "contains much sexuality in its content" as a reason for deletion? Give me a break. Atom 12:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: No valid reason given for deletion. DCEdwards1966 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I have changed again to Neutral. I shall admit it, I am not such a big fan of erotic subjects, but it is my habit to participate in every issue. You are right, Uio, this article DOES contain sexuality and it DOES have images that are not too pleasant. However, HalJor is quite right, Wikipedia is NOT censored. I understand your concern that this page could have a negative effect on certain people, especially minors, and, though I WOULD want to delete the article, it simply does not directly defy the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Uio, YOU must kindly understand that Wikipedia does NOT censor its articles, though I repeat, your suggestion that this page should be deleted is certainly understandable. Ntyfj 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - now that the only non-nominating 'Delete' opinion has been removed, I think we have consensus for a speedy keep. I see no reason to keep this one open. Chovain 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep as Wikipedia is not censored. This is a notable topic covered in a sensible manner. The whole point of Wikipedia is to have a breadth of coverage that is wider than a "normal encyclopedia". There is nothing ridiculous about erotic spanking that I can see. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep This user's reccommendation for deletion seems to be motivated primarily on her personal opinion of BSDM and its practitioners, something that, I'm sorry, is no reason to challenge Wikipedia's longstanding policy of noncensorship. No valid reason for deletion given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.139.253 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, bloody prudes. oTHErONE (Contribs) 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, with valid rationale[edit]

The initial nomination basis is invalid because it is not based in policy. However, think the policies people. Notability is not subjective. This article not only violates but radically violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

RATIONALE:

  • This article does not establish notability, verifiability, or neutrality per how those are defined in Wikipedia policy
    • "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (from WP:N).
      • The article uses only one book reference. That is INSUFFICIENT to establish notability. Moreover, the one reference in itself fails to meet standard of being a reliable independent source so as to establish notability, and it violates NPOV:
        • "In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors" (quote from WP:N). Clearly, this article violates that because:
          • 1. The lone reference is of a book that is VERY clearly NOT from an "unbiased and unaffiliated source". The author, "Lady Green", is very clearly a partisan practitioner of Erotic spanking. Her book cannot be used in this article but only in an article about herself (see #5 below).
          • 2. The publisher of the lone reference in the article is Greenery Press. Nice sounding, but have a look at their website and tell me if you really think they meet the standard of being an "unbiased and unaffiliated source", or whether it is "independent of the subject itself". Not even close! Thus, even the lone book reference cited in the article fails to establish notability as that is defined in Wikipedia policies - it is not from "an unbiased and unaffiliated source".
          • 3. "Those interested in the article," who have written the article, have very clear been "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." This is evidenced by the product they have produced that uses the lone book source they have used in the article which is clearly NOT an "unbiased and unaffiliated source" that is "independent of the subject itself". As well, by the act of editing, editors implicitly consent that they know and author within Wikipedia content policies. This article has existed for almost 5 years and been subject to nearly 500 edits yet it violates said policies as just described and as will be described more below. This evidences they are "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors."
          • 4. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (from WP:V). Does anyone want to claim that "Lady Green" and Greenery Press tally to a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?? Hence:
          • 5. The lone book used to justify this article is, per Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability, is a source "of dubious reliability", which are defined in the policy as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." It continues, "Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)".
          • 6. The dubious reliability is evidenced throughout the article. Here is a radically dubious, and controversial, claim from the article: "Examples [of spankophiles] include the poet Algernon Swinburne and the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau." Wow!!! But per WP:V, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." Yet here in this article we have only a dubious source that, by Wikipedia policy, can not even be used in this article but only be used in an article about the author, i.e., "Lady Green". Yet here we have it as the lone source!
          • 7.WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored has a crucially important caveat. Yes, articles some find offensive are allowed, "provided they do not violate any of our existing policies", it says. WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is not a trump card to every other policy.

Notability is not subjective. Almost everyone above chided the nominator for doing this. But perhaps its time for the Keep voters above to themselves check up more throughly on Wikipedia policies. Unless this article dramatically changes in the next few days, it must be deleted for the reasons above.

CyberAnth 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Curiously, CyberAnth keeps nominating sexually-related topics for deletion. See Articles_for_deletion/Ass to mouth, Articles for deletion/Ass to pussy, Articles for deletion/Handjob, Articles for deletion/Fingering Articles for deletion/Vanilla sex and Articles for deletion/Wanker. While I will assume good faith, it seems relevant to this discussion. -- Kesh 16:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who nominated this? Not me. AAR, I will be nominating in the coming weeks hundreds of varied articles for deletion that do not met WP policies. Get used to it. It's about the policies, not whatever else you may think it is about. CyberAnth 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting that Kesh didn't actually say CyberAnth had nominated this article, but was pointing out all the sexually-oriented articles you have nominated for deletion, as a means (I think) of putting your rationale into the context of your actions. Further, your notability rationale extends what the policy means beyond what it says. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" does not mean that the multiple sources need to be referenced in the article, but that they have to exist. The article should assert the notability of its subject, but it is not called on to prove that assertion. Pursuing a deletionist agenda does not strike me as being in the best interests of the project. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not taking knives to it. Please consider relevant policy as it relates to your concerns. --Ssbohio 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a WP:V source (the pdf talks about "erotic spanking" as well, though you can't see it in the preview. It is also mentioned in the glossary of this published book[1], and in the references of this book[2]. Not really scientific, but evidence of the fact that it's a common term, is this magazine[3]. The other complaints you (CyberAnth) have require cleanup, not deletion. Fram 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is this case still open?Nina Odell 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Strongest possible speedy keepNina Odell 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Because the consensus is not (yet) speedy keep: only one editor has voted thus with justification — Iamunknown 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent references supply by Fram. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly *Merge into BDSM:
  • Who even wanted this deleted anyway? I see no reason for deletion, this article in my opinion just needs to be cleaned up a little or shortened and added onto BDSM. Wikisquared 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it interesting how concerns about verifiability get discussed with such passion in nominations like this. The issue isn't if the current article has been verified, rather the issue is if the article is likely to become verified. I see no reason why that can't happen here. If the article is deficient, the sections or sentences needing verification can be tagged. This is a wiki. Articles never appear perfectly formed. Many articles reach feature status after having a long early history without citations. -- Samuel Wantman 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about reference-padding[edit]

LOL. The recent "reference additions" is what is called reference-padding.

The willingness to reference-pad further evidences that "Those interested in the article," who have written the article, have very clear been "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors."

Here is how reference-padding works:

  1. You write an article based on one book that, per policy, can only be used in the author's biography
  2. Someone calls you on it (me)
  3. You quick scramble and stick some other references into the article while leaving the text intact
  4. You magically think that fixes the article

One of the funniest tactics of this was including this URL in the reference. It screams, "I have never actually read this article". But I have read the article, because I have access to it from my major university's library (the direct URL to the journal article is here). Guess what. Nothing in the journal text provides support for the text in this WP article. Thus, reference-padding.

If you want to prove reference-padding has not been further done, although anyone with integrity and sense will admit what I am saying is true and that this padding is as plain as day, I want to see page numbers to the "extra" references you added keyed by footnotes to assertions in the text.

Here is The Confessions of Jean-Jaques Rousseau, the complete book available to anyone because it is public domain. Perhaps you can start there. Surely if you have even actually read this book (VERY unlikely, of course) you will know where to find the text where he reportedly "confesses" to being a spankophile. Good luck.

However, please be assured I will check the references and call you on it, as I did here. Surely, if no hocus-pocus reference-padding has gone on, no one would fear doing this.

CyberAnth 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that you just have proven is that you have not looked at the actual reference. There is online access to the article and it is an article dedicated to "sexual spanking" (and more precisely, about how people practicing spanking see themselves), which states (let me quote from the article): The specific activity described in this article is simply called erotic spanking.. The second thing is that I did not include the article in a section "References", but in a section called "References and further reading" (I hope you appreciate the difference). Finally, inline citations are currently NOT required by Wikipedia (although they are encouraged), please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Yes, in time inline citations would be better, but at least now this very applicable article is already linked to from the Wikipedia article, allowing also others to more quickly find it. You are "calling" me on things that you interpret wrongly and are still ongoing. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to you finding the URL funny, I had to laugh about yours, because it will present users without access with a error message. The best URL probably would be this one: [4], to which I just changed it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My URL goes directly to the full article. For those without access it does not give an error message but defaults, as the page says, in 10 seconds to the URL you posted. The way to handle this per MOS is to include a note, "subscription required to access".
No one contests that journal article asserts that "sexual spanking" exists. At this point, the sentence you have quoted would only support an assertion that it exists. I am contesting that the journal article, which I have open right now, offers support for specific assertions within the WP article text. Surely, if you have the journal article open, and you apparently do, you will not be afraid to key a few page numbers from the journal article to assertions in the WP article text. I will be checking. CyberAnth 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CyberAnth, some of your comments above are bordering on uncivil. Might I suggest rewording to be more neutral? -- Kesh 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>

So did I and I included two inline references and a reference section. The two references are:
1.Regarding the toys used. I slightly changed the listing, but the idea is fully clear from this sentence in the article: Participants’ toy boxes were examined, replete with paddles, straps, hairbrushes, and whips.. Diff from me: [5]
2.Regarding the focus on buttocks, the following quote: defining themselves as solely interested in “the bottom,” or the buttocks, and my diff: [6].
Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, CyberAnth, I would like to ask you to clarify this statement you just made: The willingness to reference-pad further evidences that "Those interested in the article," who have written the article, have very clear been "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors" (quote from WP:N). The article radically violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV because it is written from one source, "Lady Green", whose book is allowable as a reference solely within the author's biography article. The willingness to reference-pad while retaining the text of an article that radically violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV evidences a continued pattern from "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors" who brought the article to the point of this AfD. This is not UNCIVIL. It is WP:N.
I accept the two referenced sentences you added, if the subject itself can be referenced to multiple reliable sources (one reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability). However, this and only this is what the article should look like based upon what is referenced: see here. No images can be included until what is depicted in them have first been clearly described (or depicted by comparable images) in multiple reliable sources, otherwise it is OR and Synthesis. CyberAnth 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently NOT sourced from a single source as you very well know. And remarkably, above you claimed you had read the article I added as a source... You stated "Nothing in the journal text provides support for the text in this WP article". You contested that it was a good reference. I contest that you actually read the article or that you are even interested in getting the article referenced. If you had read the article, you could have added the references yourself. I admit that I am now no longer assuming good faith here, but from here on it is impossible for me to do so with regard to all these recent AfDs. I strongly suggest you find more collaborative ways of communicating with other editors to improve articles in the future (there was the very good suggestion of contacting the Wikiproject sexuality). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has been reference-padded. That is what I said.

The purpose of the journal article is to delve into the ontological identify formations of erotic spankers and how they psychologically guide themselves through stigmatization neutralizations.

The piece asks, "How do spanking aficionados understand and explain themselves?" It seeks to understand spankers' "sexual scripts, neutralization of stigma, impression management, and the development of the sexual self". It uses interviews as its primary research method.

It is not about exhibitionism.

Here is a quote that captures much of the tenor of the article:

About spanking aficionados, he did say, "We wonder about ourselves and our 'perversion' endlessly" ... Newer participants were especially prone to these musings. Andrew said, "You know, I can’t believe that I’m here. I look around and wonder what the hell I’m doing here. I mean, I'm not like these other people. This isn’t all I do or anything." He was trying to neutralize any stigma to himself by comparing himself to the other party-goers. He implied that the others had a single-minded focus on spanking–but he was "normal," his interest in spanking was just a small piece of his identity.

The article then expands the above description of stigmatization neutralization, by showing it is done through comparing one's own behavior with others':

One group denigrates another "fringe" group in order to mitigate the stigmatizing effects: "are more normal than they are; they are the true deviants."

You don't "write an article" citing one unallowable reference and then "get it referenced" via reference padding with allowable ones, while keeping the text intact based on one unallowable reference. You scrap the text, go to the reliable references, and then write the article based solidly upon them. You might call that "bad faith", but I call it "how to responsibly write an encyclopedia."

CyberAnth 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't write the article. Second, you don't have to copy/paste random, beside the point quotes from the article to prove that you have access. Finally, although admirable, what you consider "how to responsibly write an encyclopedia" is not how Wikipedia currently works. All the time people are adding unsourced information. Given time and attention, that information will be sourced (by the same people, or by others) or removed íf sources cannot be found. You want to remove information without even having looked if sources exist (as proven above by the fact that you fully disregarded the mentioned article as a source). There is (in Wikipedia) nothing wrong with searching references for statements made by others. It happens all the time and is (part of) how Wikipedia works. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random text? You're kidding, right? I gave a brief review of the whole article. The only thing it does is verify a few basic facts, e.g., "spanking often occurs on the buttocks". If you want to have entire books reference material, place the page numbers with footnotes at the bottom so people can actually verify it. Otherwise, no one can tell it from reference padding. Would you like people to have to read the entire book to verify some sentences? If you have the book, place the page numbers and reference them to specific portions of the text. That way I can (and will) verify (or falsify) it. CyberAnth 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I was not kidding, you are cluttering this discussion with unrelated things. The article is (as you yourself stated) based on interviews with people engaging in spanking. They themselves have stated they were "solely interested in “the bottom,” or the buttocks". This is the perfect source for that statement in the Wikipedia article. And yes, those are basic facts. Are you now saying that the basic facts do not need sources? What exactly is the point you are trying to make by giving two elaborate quotes from the reference? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to page numbers... you are really pushing it now. This is NOT common practice, even in science. There is some intelligence to be expected from the reader. But if it is you important to you, why don't YOU add those page numbers. I gave you the exact quotes from which I took my references above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago I already accepted the two quotes as referenced reliably, remember? I showed what the article should look like based upon what is referenced and verifiable, see here. I am speaking of the rest of the article that I cannot verify. If whoever added the Koetzle and Marcus book did not just reference-pad with them by just finding a book listed at amazon.com or something, it should not be too much trouble to post page numbers footnoted to article text so I can verify (or falsify) the content. CyberAnth 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the "reference padding" Okay, I'm the one who added the new paragraph on the Victorian spanking, the new book references, and the phrase about Rousseau's Confessions. I was relaying facts from a term paper I wrote three years ago for a class on Victorian pornography. If that makes me partisan, then so are many other people working in sex and gender studies. I'm sorry if I don't remember exact page numbers from books I read in 2003, but to impugn someone's integrity without knowing all the facts is cruel and insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.105.69 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 January 2007
See anon I.P.'s contribs.[7] Since your term paper is not published by a reliable source, it cannot be used as a source because it is not verifiable. Here is the entire text for free of The Confessions of Jean-Jaques Rousseau. I cannot find verification in it that he was a spankophile. If you can, cite the Book#, entry date#, and paragrapah# number so others can verify the assertion. CyberAnth 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finding that statement in the book itself would be original research, as you very well know. It is a primary source, see WP:RS for info (Any interpretive claims require secondary sources). Secondary sources are preferred, like the one by Sigmund Freud that I already added to the article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, is it worded as an interpretive claim by so-and-so author or is it asserted as fact that can plainly be read in Confessions? CyberAnth 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Those interested in giving or receiving erotic spankings are sometimes (rarely) known as spankophiles. Examples include the poet Algernon Swinburne (as implied repeatedly in his poetry) and the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as detailed in his autobiography "Confessions" [emphasis mine] So, I'm guessing the latter. But the wording could be improved - how would you do so?
    • I am not listing myself as a source but rather drawing on information I came across while researching my paper (namely, Marcus, Koetzle, and the body -pun unintentional- of Victorian pornography). I realize that doing so would be academically dishonest. I was trying to make this article better by adding historical information. - "Anonymous" (though definitely not Henry Spencer Ashbee) :)
  • Speedy, strong keep WP is not censored for morality. Parents need to do their own policing of children's surfing. This is a valid phenomenon and topic of interest. Aleta 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I strenghthen my "keep" per comments of Ssbohio. Aleta 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the Rousseau thing Textual evidence can be found here (4th link down). [8] I apologize if I've miscounted the paragraphs; I didn't include the poetry. The actual passage is shorter, but because of the difference in the language I was careful not to leave anything out that would help people understand what was going on: paragraphs 34-41. How do I need to cite that, again? Do you think I should include a quote in the text? If so, which part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.157.233 (talk • contribs) 21:52, January 5, 2007

  • Comment - My rationale for speedy keep

Beyond the fact that this topic is extremely notable and has historic significance, it's a part of healthy and consensual sexuality. Wikipedia is not censored for children, and furthermore, children are not idiots. Any minor with access to an unlocked computer (how many of those are around, I wonder) or a library card can and will get whatever information they need on just about any topic.

If they have a couple of bucks and an older friend, they can get everything they need to know in the way of pornography. On any topic related to sexuality, I personally would prefer they got their info here, rather than there. Erotic Spanking doesn't need to be deleted, it needs to be expanded and improved. Nina Odell 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - the article is on a valid subject, notable enough for Wikipedia. If people want to see more references the way to go is to add an appropriate clean-up tag to the article. Johntex\talk 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy & strong keep - The original rationale is not only not supported by policy, it is opposed by policy. The detailed arguments of CyberAnth speak to a need to improve the article. Given CyberAnth's concern about the article, my suggestion would be that his/her energies be turned toward improving it. The subject is notable (close to 200,000 Google hits on the exact phrase "erotic spanking"). It's been the subject of book, magazine, film, and scholarly research. Notability is so clearly and objectively established in popular culture as to render assertions to the contrary doubtful at best. Certainly, the article needs improvement, but deletion is unwarranted. --Ssbohio 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, snowball's chance under this dogpile. Fram and Ssbohio have said all that needed to be said. Notability and Verifiability established. POV is not an argument for deletion, but for improvement. See WP:AFD, "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." CyberAnth needs to remember that Wikipedia is not the place to "fight the good fight". There's plenty of free blog sites out there. — coelacan talk — 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per all above. Artw 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another tiresome nom Albatross2147 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well established topic. Mallanox 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep this right away please the subject notable this is not even borderline at all Yuckfoo 10:16, 7 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erotic_spanking&oldid=1082398073"