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)

Strong Delete, with valid rationale

The initial nomination basis is invalid because it is not based in policy. However, think the policies people. Notability is not subjective. This article not only violates but radically violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

RATIONALE:

• This article does not establish notability, verifiability, or neutrality per how those are defined in Wikipedia policy
  • "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (from WP:N).
    • The article uses only one book reference. That is INSUFFICIENT to establish notability. Moreover, the one reference in itself fails to meet standard of being a reliable independent source so as to establish notability, and it violates NPOV:
      • "In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors" (quote from WP:N). Clearly, this article violates that because:
        • 1. The lone reference is of a book that is VERY clearly NOT from an "unbiased and unaffiliated source". The author, "Lady Green", is very clearly a partisan practitioner of Erotic spanking. Her book cannot be used in this article but only in an article about herself (see #5 below).
        • 2. The publisher of the lone reference in the article is Greenery Press. Nice sounding, but have a look at their website and tell me if you really think they meet the standard of being an "unbiased and unaffiliated source", or whether it is "independent of the subject itself". Not even close! Thus, even the lone book reference cited in the article fails to establish notability as that is defined in Wikipedia policies - it is not from "an unbiased and unaffiliated source".
        • 3. "Those interested in the article," who have written the article, have very clear been "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." This is evidenced by the product they have produced that uses the lone book source they have used in the article which is clearly NOT an "unbiased and unaffiliated source" that is "independent of the subject itself". As well, by the act of editing, editors implicitly consent that they know and author within Wikipedia content policies. This article has existed for almost 5 years and been subject to nearly 500 edits yet it violates said policies as just described and as will be described more below. This evidences they are "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors."
        • 4. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (from WP:V). Does anyone want to claim that "Lady Green" and Greenery Press tally to a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?? Hence:
        • 5. The lone book used to justify this article is, per Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability, is a source "of dubious reliability", which are defined in the policy as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." It continues, "Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)".
        • 6. The dubious reliability is evidenced throughout the article. Here is a radically dubious, and controversial, claim from the article: "Examples [of spankophiles] include the poet Algernon Swinburne and the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau." Wow!!! But per WP:V, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." Yet here in this article we have only a dubious source that, by Wikipedia policy, can not even be used in this article but only be used in an article about the author, i.e., "Lady Green". Yet here we have it as the lone source!
        • 7.WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored has a crucially important caveat. Yes, articles some find offensive are allowed, "provided they do not violate any of our existing policies", it says. WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is not a trump card to every other policy.

Notability is not subjective. Almost everyone above chided the nominator for doing this. But perhaps its time for the Keep voters above to themselves check up more throughly on Wikipedia policies. Unless this article dramatically changes in the next few days, it must be deleted for the reasons above.

CyberAnth 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---