Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (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. I'm discounting most "delete" comments made before Simon Speed's expansion and sourcing of the article, as they focused on the lack of reliable sources for (and therefore also notability of) the topic. Most of these comments would probably not have been made after the edits to the article. Sandstein 06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play party (BDSM)[edit]

The whole article is basically an explanation of a term called a "play party". Is it necessary to have a two sentence article describing an almost self-explanatory topic? This is obviously not notable enough for its own article. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Nominator made request of withdrawal of this nomination below and voted "KEEP." --Oakshade (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This obviously does not meet WP:N, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. At best it has coverage in one source, but it's really just half a page. The last AFD produced more in the way of promises of sources than actual sources. --Rividian (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OR as well. Grsz ^talk 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically a dictionary definition. Aleta ^Sing 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep as per expansion and addition of reliable sources. Well done, Simonxag, Aleta ^Sing 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just looked at the talk page and history of the article. It seems that there is a content and sourcing debate happening. The article was a lot longer than the two sentences it is now, but mostly unsourced. Also, the last AfD closed just on the 3rd of May. Aleta ^Sing 04:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial subject that clearly fails WP:N. Nothing warrants a separate article about this. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - Although I would !vote delete on the article in its current condition, I do not think that it is reasonable to renominate an article less than a week after a previous AfD has closed. Obviously consensus can change, and the previous AfD closed without consensus being reached, but I don't think particularly want to encourage repeated nominations until an article is kept or deleted. I am not accusing the current nominator of this behavior, rather, this is a general policy argument. Xymmax (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books are more likely to be the multiple reliable sources required here, and presumably there are a great many books about BDSM. --Eastmain (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hypothetical argument not based on the verifiable evidence that is actually presented here. Only one book is cited in the article itself and it is not clear from the citation that the book even mentions the "Play party". Even if it does, the context is not clear either and there is no indication that the concept itself is notable, as required by WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book does, but it mentions play party for half a page. You can find it on Google Books. At any rate, claims that this is "presumably" mentioned in some books somewhere is a very weak argument... you could say anything is mentioned in some book somewhere, it doesn't mean much without proof. --Rividian (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dict def. However, it is highly inappropriate to renominate an article so soon after the last AfD. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Article has been stripped down to 2 directly sourced facts. A number of websites give further information, but the deleter Rividian has made it clear that any word not directly referenced to a printed source will be deleted. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it's a dictionary entry at best; one discussion in a book on kinky sex doesn't make a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are unreliable. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: at this point, the article was re-edited by Simon Speed. -- The Anome

Comment I have re-edited the article. It is substantially expanded and has 5 reliable sources with inline citations. The reasons given for deletion clearly no longer apply. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now appears to be adequately sourced. -- The Anome (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks to be a notable topic in the BDSM community, is a decent start to an article, is in the middle of a content dispute, and this re-nomination is way too soon. --Alynna (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At this point, even I, being the nominator of the second AfD, am starting to lean toward the keep side. I think maybe I nominated this article prematurely. Sorry about that. Now it seems to have established its notability and we are starting to see more sources. In this stage, deletion is no longer the resolution, improvement is. Are there any objections? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef and trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are reliable enough for the purpose. And it is a discussion of the subject, not a dicdef. DGG (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per nom (!). AfD is not the place to ask for article clean up. Bikasuishin (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for AFD. Discussion of common term within subculture, and is now backed up by five sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For this very common BDSM function, this was a case for improvement and expansion tags, not deletion, especially as the article was under AfD a week ago. This happenstime and time again. --Oakshade (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, it happens time and time again. "It" in this context being "keep and improve" followed by no improvement. If the improvements this time round had been made then, no renomination would have occurred. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improved? The content has changed little. With 1 exception which I had deleted) it always matched what you found googling umpteen sites. What has changed is the number of accademic & printed sources and that every phrase is referenced to these. Any phrase not so referenced was being deleted citing verifiability. Something you find elsewhere in Wikipedia? Really? Most of those wanting to delete here have acted in good faith, but none have actually done anything to improve the article. I have acted in an attempt to stop the article being censored. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Simon, adding those references is a big improvement to the article! Aleta ^Sing 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only in making the article harder to censor. The verifiability principle is there to help clear out rubbish & resolve POV disputes. It has been abused here to break the not-censored principle. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I currently trying to save an article about a stip club/fetish store from another AFD if I'm so interested in censoring sex articles? I guess I'm interested in stopping an article from providing questionable legal and safety advice, as the Play party article did a week ago, and asking for references seems to have fixed that. Accusations that I'm just trying to delete this article because it's about sex are a classic contradiction of WP:AGF, rude, and incorrect; they're based on assuming the worst of me rather than looking at anything I'm actually doing and saying. --Rividian (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, making it "harder to censor" is only one way it improved the article. While it is not required that every statement in an article be cited, an article with every statement cited to a reliable source is definitely better than the exact same text without those citations. Aleta ^Sing 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page seems to be sourced in a number of independent hard-sources. Personally, I see no merit in the claims that this page fails to meet the notability criterion. The claims that this page is too similar to a dictionary definition do not warrant deleting the page--they warrant expanding it. I also want to remark that the people suggesting the deletion and deleting a lot of the prose might first take a look at the cited sources before making bold claims that this page is not adequately sourced. Cazort (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. Like, come on, you prudes! JeanLatore (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly trivial. Lighthead ^þ 02:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the subject of secondary sources. Besides the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, is there any other reason you feel this should be deleted? --Oakshade (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The has not been "the subject of secondary sources". It's been mentioned 1-2 times in 5 sources... none of them are even close to being written about play parties. I do not believe this meets WP:N or WP:NEO, which require sources about the topic, rather than ones that mention the topic once or twice, but it's a lot closer now than the first AFD and it's no longer such a problematic article. --Rividian (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this. And I'm pretty sure now that there must be more of these. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a start. But is the "Australian BDSM Information Site" a reliable source? I'm just thinking about this as I would any other questionable article. Say there was an article on some World of Warcraft term, a lot of people wouldn't really make much of a fan-written essay about the term if the only publisher was a WoW fansite. But here we have an enthusiast-written, enthusiast-published article, just on a different subject... is it really that different than the Warcraft example? --Rividian (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic where most of the sources will be books. The Washington Post just isn't going to write a lot of stories on this topic. Google Books shows an abundance of coverage on BDSM parties, and these are just the ones scanned to G-books. BDSM is a big culture and the parties are a major component of that. --Oakshade (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that I realize there is evidence of passing mentions of this topic, so links to more passing mentions (as picked up by a Google books search) doesn't really tell me anything new. Traditional sources do write about sexual topics that are of genuine importance, such as [[sexual fetishism for example, but not every term people in some scene happen to like is going to be all that important. --Rividian (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many (but not all) listed there are more than "passing mentions" and we are only able to see samples of these books. While i don't have access to the entire books, there is indication that many of the books go into more detail and perhaps even have entire chapters dedicated to BDSM parties. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It documents a real activity, and I can see no reason it should be removed. A quick google finds hundreds of thousands of pages on bdsm play parties, clubs organizing same, etc. Bushytails (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining from giving my opinion. However, as linked above, this article was nominated for deletion by User:Rividian previously, and I closed it as "No consensus". What has not been mentioned, as near as I can tell, is that my close of the debate was contested in WP:DRV, by Rividian, located here, later to be closed by Rividian himself when he saw this (premature} AfD. The consensus at the DRV discussion was leaning very strongly towards "Endorse closure", despite Rividian's wrong assertions in his DRV closing statement ("...which is what consensus for this DRV was anyway..") otherwise. This is a premature AfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination since this was just here and deletion review and these facts were not mentioned in the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Whether or not it was a bad nom the subject is certainly notable with books, seminars and workshops devoted to the subject. Traditionally an underground phenomena within LGBT, kink and leather communities BDSM play parties have gone mainstream and plenty of reliable sources can be found to support the subject. Banje boi 20:50, 14 May 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.