Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave auction (BDSM)

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The result was nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slave auction (BDSM)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see a need to immediately rush to deletion -- the Google search "slave auction" bdsm -wikipedia turns up 30,000 hits... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnonMoos, the search you provided gives a total of around 700 results. The problem is, they are mostly unreliable sources, and the few cases they are reliable, the mention is trivial. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the relative difficulty of finding conventional RSs by our usual standards, I think for this subject a we can accept what there is here. We use the best sources. Is there any real doubt that it exists? I expect some sources in fiction at such. DGG (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per fist sentence of WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true, unless references provided,per WP:PROVEIT, this article is in Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006, there are no articles on Wikipedia that have been tagged for lack of references longer then this article. Jeepday (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have been provided to meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. Jeepday (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you dig through the search results there are references including an April 10, 1976 LAPD raid. I believe that part of the issue here is that we have a very poorly written, and I think, inaccurate article. It does need an expert to rewrite it. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sort of thing does surface in the news occasionally (see above), and I personally think it is notable. Also note that this kind of thing is not exactly trumpeted and announced with fanfare outside of the community in which it happens, for obvious reasons, so it is not likely to have as prolific references as, say, fish could. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:14, 3 August 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.