Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asymmetric bondage

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 merge to Bondage (BDSM). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetric bondage

Non-notable bondage term, no references. No doubt this exists but it doesn't seem to have sufficient coverage to warrant an article and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod, however there doesn't appear to me to be content worth merging. WJBscribe (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bondage (BDSM), where the subject is briefly mentioned in a list. Might be a likely search term and candidate for future expansion. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested by Reinoutr. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as it was sugegsted above. The article on its own is not notable. abf /talk to me/ 17:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs to show it satisfies notability and verifiability requirements. A Google search shows some hits at "how-to do bondage" sites which do not appear to constitute reliable and independent sources. A redirect might be appropriate, but nothing here to merge. Edison (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested above. --Lockley (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bondage (BDSM) as suggested above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the time being . there is certainly enough material on the web for an article, though it is not in what would usually be call RSs. Some of this may be published more conventionally, but none of the people here seem to have done the research to find them. In practice, until someone is interested in the article, the best solution is to merge, with a redirect, and without prejudice to reconstruction when someone cares to develop proper content. . DGG (talk) 17:47, 24 September 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.