Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie bondage
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 delete. Sandstein 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barbie bondage
- Barbie bondage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A nonnotable expression with no reliable sources to define suffdicient encyclopedic content. May be used in numerous contexts. At best, to be moved to wiktionary Laudak (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wholely unreferenced "opinion piece" that fails notabiltiy criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is at best an unreferenced talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Dictionary definition with no assertion of notability D0762 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this really isn't even a dictionary definition IMHO. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate keep. The term is widely used in the art sense (indeed "Barbie bondage" +art -wikipedia returns some 9,000 ghits), and feel that that section of the article can be expanded well beyond a dictionary definition. It does need considerable work - and references, of course (I've added one for starters) - but "needing work" is not a deletion criterion. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you simply speculating, or have you actually gleaned some reliable, encyclopedia-worthy sources in those 9000 Google hits you're referring to? coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the one I added was in the first two or three items on google - I didn't have time to go through many of them to check, but i would assume that if one of the first two or three was reliable, others would be too. Also, as I said, the term is widely used in art (I work as an art reviewer and artist, and have come across the term on several occasions). It should not be hard to track down several encyclopedic references. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you simply speculating, or have you actually gleaned some reliable, encyclopedia-worthy sources in those 9000 Google hits you're referring to? coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:18, 18 June 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.