Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic spanking

Erotic spanking

Erotic spanking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Strong Delete. This page contains much sexuality in its contents and quite a few inappropriate images. A normal encyclopedia would not have an article about this ridiculous erotic spanking. I think it is safe to assume that not too many users view this article, except those who are... unlike most, no offense. It is quite useless, in my humble opinion, and merely taking up space in Wikipedia. I did not expect many people to object. I am sorry if I have done something wrong by proposing the deletion of this article, it is just that I did not expect too many people to oppose my opinion. Please consider my suggestion to remove this article. I doubt it will greatly impact your life in a negative way if this article is gone, but I fear it is possible that the same cannot be said for others, especially younger users. Please support my suggestion. Thanks! Uioh 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See the Wikipedia page that Wikipedia is not censored. HalJor 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Uio, I have pondered your words for a long, LONG, time, and I have finally decided to side by you. However, I am sorry, but please do not get your hopes up too much, as I am still pondering and my vote could change at any time. Thanks. Ntyfj 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(Changed mind to Neutral)

• Strong Keep. This has been nominated at least twice today with no reason specified at any time. Granted, this article could stand some clean-up and/or citations as noted, but it has existed for almost 5 years. Unless someone can provide a legitimate reason to delete this article, it should stay. HalJor 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic, adequately sourced. I would advise Uioh and HalJor to change their opinions to "Delete" and "Keep" as appropriate, incidentally. Tevildo 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a legitimate topic. Wikipedia is not censored for content. Tunnels of Set 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but it should be? Why ever reason not? Especially if at least one-fourth of its users ARE minors. If this article was removed, how would that harm Wikipedia or you? It COULD offend minors and their parents that use Wikipedia perhaps daily! At the very least, please remove the images, please! Are they necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uioh (talk • contribs) 21:12, January 3, 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but this is one of the foundation principles of Wikipedia. It's the responsibility of parents to prevent their children looking at "offensive" material, not for us to act as childminders. Tevildo 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this subject is quite a bit more notable than autocunnilingus. Wikipedia is not censored. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but what do you mean by "notable"? Uioh 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Strong Keep per Wikipedia is not censored. The article needs more citations for verifiability, but the subject matter is certainly notable. -- Kesh 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - exactly as per Kesh. Chovain 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep but definitely looks like cleanup is needed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. You can't nominate an article for deletion because it doesn't violate a Wikipedia policy. —Chowbok ☠ 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --- RockMFR 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. Akihabara 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. Appears to be a part of our BDSM coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Modesty is not a reason for deletion. Danny Lilithborne 10:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It should be featured. Anomo 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "contains much sexuality in its content" as a reason for deletion? Give me a break. Atom 12:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: No valid reason given for deletion. DCEdwards1966 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I have changed again to Neutral. I shall admit it, I am not such a big fan of erotic subjects, but it is my habit to participate in every issue. You are right, Uio, this article DOES contain sexuality and it DOES have images that are not too pleasant. However, HalJor is quite right, Wikipedia is NOT censored. I understand your concern that this page could have a negative effect on certain people, especially minors, and, though I WOULD want to delete the article, it simply does not directly defy the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Uio, YOU must kindly understand that Wikipedia does NOT censor its articles, though I repeat, your suggestion that this page should be deleted is certainly understandable. Ntyfj 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - now that the only non-nominating 'Delete' opinion has been removed, I think we have consensus for a speedy keep. I see no reason to keep this one open. Chovain 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keeep as Wikipedia is not censored. This is a notable topic covered in a sensible manner. The whole point of Wikipedia is to have a breadth of coverage that is wider than a "normal encyclopedia". There is nothing ridiculous about erotic spanking that I can see. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This user's reccommendation for deletion seems to be motivated primarily on her personal opinion of BSDM and its practitioners, something that, I'm sorry, is no reason to challenge Wikipedia's longstanding policy of noncensorship. No valid reason for deletion given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.139.253 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, bloody prudes. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)