Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BDSM Rights Flag

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 Delete. No evidence at all that this has any notability, not even the limited notability we want for a merge. No sources but the primary one. Fram (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BDSM Rights Flag

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

Undue promotion of an emblem from some BDSM website Timurite (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, unlike ‎BDSM Emblem (which is a slam-dunk "keep"), this one is a little bit more questionable. It's achieved a certain limited degree of prominence among certain segments of the on-line BDSM community (as a convenient copyright- and trademark-free alternative to the BDSM emblem, if for no other reason), but it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate a conventional Wikipedia-required level of notability from Wikipedia-approved reliable sources. Timurite's accusations that this is nothing more than "website promotion" seems to be a manifestation of tedious tiresome heavy-handed cynicism without much grounding in fact -- but on the other hand, it's definitely problematic that it was Tanos himself who first created the article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your personal insults to yourself. Timurite (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- I evaluated your edits with respect to whether they served their ostensible ends, and seemed to be actually motivated by the goal of improvement of Wikipedia or fell short in that respect. You were the one who inserted disparaging commentary about the personal motivations of Tanos into your AFD nomination. AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wasn't aware BDSM people didn't have equal rights? Merge any findable sourced material to BDSM#Symbols CTJF83 chat 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you haven't kept up with developments such as Operation Spanner, have you now? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete if it can't get more reliable sources. Currently it only mentions a primary source and Wipipedia, which I'm not sure if it can be used as a reliable source. JIP | Talk 09:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but to Leather Pride flag under variations along with the BDSM emblem article also at AfD. The BDSM article is quite large and I'm unconvinced this really adds much there whereas the Leather Pride flag article is small and combined with the BDSM emblem content would seem to make sense and allow for easy comparisons between the flags. -- Banjeboi 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the "BDSM emblem" article can be usefully merged with Leather Pride flag (see that article's deletion discussion), but you're right that "BDSM Rights Flag" certainly could be. AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of coverage satisfying the GNG or any specialized guideline. If the organization involved were notable, it might be worth a mention there, but it doesn't appear to be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 13 March 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.