Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottom (BDSM)

OK, I'll bite. What are the grounds for deletion for this one? HalJor 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Eluchil404 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom (BDSM)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 03:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable and established concept in the BSDM community, which has been the subject of nontrivial external works in many places. BSDM subculture is notable, and submission is notable (referenced, reported on, etc.) Could use sourcing, but that's not a deletion reason. I'm going to attempt some cleanup, but this massive flood of noms is so overwhelming it will take longer than 5 days to look at all the articles in detail alone... Wintermut3 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are also no sources. TJ Spyke 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Wintermut3. HalJor 05:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wintermut3. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "More" references? The article has NO references. You also don't say how it establishes notability. So far none of the Keep votes have come up with a good reason to keep from what I can see. TJ Spyke 06:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dumb nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. --Dennisthe2 09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Three sources/references have been added, and I could have added 20 more. Also removed OR & source tags. SkierRMH 09:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's getting harder and harder to AGF with these deletion nominations. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. --Charlene 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Bad faith nomination, but article needs work. Atom 13:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, sources have all been verified, the nomination is a bit dumb. I cannot assume good faith here, sorry. Everything is there, we can't deny anything. Terence Ong 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Wintermut3. Give it a chance to improve; and if your true concern is the quality of these please help out. Mass-AfDing of articles is not good faith. Akihabara 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not in good faith whatsoever. Mass AfD-ing and it's starting to look more like trolling than anything else Gretnagod 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Another of [[CyberAnth's AfDs towards an article about sexuality. The article does need updated for verifiability, but the term is notable and the article can be brought up to encyclopedic standards. -- Kesh 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albatross2147 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current version of article could use improvement, but definitely should stick around. --Haemo 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well established term.-- danntm ^T _C 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given, established term easily verifiable etc. Malla nox 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--HisSpaceResearch 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Clearly notable and verifyable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Everyone knows this one; I do not like to say a nominator is in bad faith, but in this instance... Well, I'll just say he should reread WP:SNOW. DGG 05:16, 10 January 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.