Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab strap (sexual device)

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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arab strap (sexual device)[edit]

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

Original research, and is written as a "how-to guide" at that. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced/unreferenced. Nakon 21:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sex toy; there's a section there we could add a couple lines to about this, which is all it merits, but there should be some reference, given that the device has been mentioned in popular culture before (e.g., Arab Strap (band), The Boy with the Arab Strap). — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a simple reference to sex toy giving basic information, pending consensus. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is notable but strange. See Google search - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm wondering what you're intending to point out with that Google search; 90% of the hits are for the band, not the toy, even after weighting the search. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 23:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the band refs. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:20, 11 September 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) 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid, encyclopedic topic, and a look at the talk page shows definite interest in the subject. Verifiable and informative, just needs some referencing and editing to remove the how-to material. Net benefit to keep and improve. -- œ ^™ 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet the standards for things (tools) Rirunmot 21:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep - I do not know much about it, but I believe it can be sourced if it is on the market somewhere. It may have multiple names. If there is an article about the same thing under another name, it can be merged. Dew Kane (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly unreferenced essay. Carrite (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Educational. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:53, 13 September 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.