Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondage rope harness

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bondage rope harness

Bondage rope harness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not appear to be independently notable. No references demonstrate this to me. Merrill Stubing (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Bondage equipment rope bondage. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On further consideration I prefer The Anome's suggestion below. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is clearly part of the larger topic of rope bondage, which is in turn clearly notable because of the large number of educational books on the subject. Merge and redirect to Rope bondage, which this will fill out to be a substantial article. -- The Anome (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed to Speedy keep per Logan's recent addition of page cites to multiple reliable sources. -- The Anome (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I just added a second reference to the article, and there are 70 pages between the two. I imagine there are plenty of other sources. (Incidentally, Japanese bondage is a closer merge target.) --Pnm (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Porn cruft is one of my pet peeves, but this is tolerably well done to meet muster as encyclopedia-worthy treatment of the topic. Sourcing could stand great improvement, obviously, but I don't doubt that it could be garnered. The idea of merger and redirection to rope bondage is also viable; deletion seems inappropriate. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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.