Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (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. Shimeru (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scene (BDSM)

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

No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term itself is not notable enough to justify a standalone article. Any verifiable information it might contain should be merged into the BDSM article (but much of it is covered there already). — Satori Son 15:10, 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) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to BDSM. Nothing here that could not be covered in the main article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Satori Son. The term is not encyclopedic. Joal Beal (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep' About as basic as you can get. Appropriate for an article, something that someone might reasonably look for in a contemporary encyclopedia.. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourcable content with BDSM. Epbr123 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge are redirect to BDSM -- Karada (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As DGG said, this is about as basic as it comes and a necessary definition for further discussion of the subject. I am shocked nobody has gotten off their butt to google the term, which is used commonly in almost all BDSM discussion. I have added three links to its usage, taking only a few seconds to find them on the first page of google. Instead all these AfD people would rather sit on their hands, vote delete, and watch another informative WP article die. Thank you all you lazy . . . OsamaPJ (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the references you have added do not appear to be reliable sources, that is, "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The usage of the term is not in doubt, but its notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I provided are sources from within the BDSM community--the people who are in the know about this subject matter. What you consider unreliable are exactly what you will get when the entire subject matter is pushed underground. THIS IS the media you will get within BDSM--things that allow anonymity. It is a convenient stipulation you place on this subject in order to censor it rather than to learn about it. Shame on you.OsamaPJ (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are the requirements agreed by the Wikipedia community as part of the policy on verifiability, namely, "whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". This is one of the core content policies. I see nothing to be ashamed of in following it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:06, 13 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.