Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lotus tie

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. BJ^Talk 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus tie[edit]

Non-notable bondage term, tagged as being without references since June 2007. No doubt this exists but it doesn't seem to have sufficient coverage to warrant an article and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod, however there doesn't appear to me to be content worth merging. WJBscribe (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. A google search does not look promising (results about cars and neckwear). Edison (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge' Although there is probably material available to build a separate article, it would be more practical to consolidate the articles on the various specific positions. If someone does want to look for printed material, I suggest an appropriate bookstore. . DGG (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Porncruft, not notable. rootology (C)(T) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with nominator -- this doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:V.Edison (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (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.