Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair bondage

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 redirect to bondage, mention there if claims can be verified. W.marsh 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hair bondage[edit]

Non-notable bondage term. No references make this article pure OR and without discussion in reliable secondary sources its impossible to judge whether this is something that should have an article. WjBscribe 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely non-notable ⁮şœśэїŝәқι 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its referenced now, its another oneof those articles that is not to everyones taste, but that does exist.KTo288 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N . Youtube and the website cited are inadequate to show notability. Edison 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with bondage. Short piece. William Ortiz 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with bondage. I don't know what constitutes WP:RS in this field, but it has 32,000+ google hits excluding wikipedia. It certainly has significant coverage by independent sources, but the question is whether or not those sources can be considered reliable. By its very nature I guess it's unlikely to have coverage in mainstream publications. It's a pity we don't have some sexuality-related notability guidelines. It's short enough to happily merge into bondage though, since "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" (WP:N). --Beloved Freak 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the content is unreferenced, merging doesn't really solve the problem - it'd just be moving the problem for one page to another. There are a lot of very serious manuals written about sexual fetishes, both online and on paper, so I don't think there's any excuse for this material lacking reliable sources if it were a notable fact of BDSM... WjBscribe 21:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate references.--Bedivere 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Jreferee t/c 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Page can always be recreated when good sources are found. Current references are BDSM forums, and they make no claim to notability within the BDSM lifestyle, let alone outside it. SolidPlaid 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge easily as an example of BDSM. Not necessary to have its own article. Keeper | 76 22:02, 12 October 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.