Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cock and ball torture (2nd nomination)

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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus RMHED 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cock and ball torture

This article is nothing more than a restatement of the title. Do we need a separate article on each separate area of the body subject to BDSM activity? Nothing here establishes how this differs from any other kind of BDSM torture. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google search shows that the abbreviation CBT is widely used for this practice - implying sufficient notability. The article seems to explain in detail how it differs from SM and torture applying to other parts of the body. --DAJF 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (weak as I think the subject is idiotic). Has books (CBT: Cock-and-Ball Torture in a Nutshell Dem-Lab Presents S/M Tech #4 ISBN 1887895086, + the one in the article) primarily about it and is noted in many other books. Has a few interesting hits in google scholar. Unfortunately the world at large seems to consider this a sufficiently notable alternative to tennis- Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is far more than a restatement of the title, and has been shown to be notable. Phil Bridger 12:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems notable within BDSM, from the sources that we know to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Week Keep Despite the resounding results of the previous AfD, the sourcing is a bit thin. When AfD number 3 inevitably rolls around, I will likely switch over to delete if no additional sources can be located and added to the article to beef it up. I would strongly suggest that many of the articles for variant practices listed under "see also", most of which have no sources whatsoever, should be merged into this one, which just might help expand this article (without the benefit of weights). Thanks to Peripitus, I had never known that when the question "Tennis, anyone?" is posed, that this is the alternative. Alansohn 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be an easily sourceable and expandable artcile on a notable sex act. Not one I could possibly contribute to from work though... MLA 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sadly, I must admit that this is notable. JJL 15:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I specifically mentioned this practice to someone today. It's not pretty (many sexual practices aren't), but it's notable and well-known enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry. --JimBurnell 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into BDSM. Besides the definition, the article includes only a list of practices it can be combined with (adequately handled by adding a "these can be combined" sentence at BDSM#Various practices), and a paragraph about how it causes pleasure (which could be integrated into BDSM#Physiology). The article doesn't indicate that this is a distinctive enough practice to need a separate article. EALacey 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not convinced by the reasons for deletion. User:Veesicle 22:25, 13 November 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.