Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoundCon
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. Tone 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BoundCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources. Reads like an advertisement. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom. As far as I can tell, this is an advertisement. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero hits on Google News archive for BoundCon BDSM. Not notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is there any specific part that reads like an advertisement? JIP | Talk 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not anymore, though technically one could say it reads just like a blurb in a tourist guide. But the issue is the lack of reliable sources to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks. I removed a detailed description of what BoundCon 2005 included, and felt that what remained was basically just the basic facts - what sort of convention this is, where, and when. I have found it difficult to find reliable sources. There are plenty of Google hits for "BoundCon", but pretty much all of these come from either its official site, Wikipedia, or from the official sites of bondage models, bondage riggers, or BDSM photography/video sites that are appearing there. I guess these would constitute primary sources, which will not suffice for Wikipedia - these primary sources have to be noted by some secondary source first. JIP | Talk 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not anymore, though technically one could say it reads just like a blurb in a tourist guide. But the issue is the lack of reliable sources to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable event. Joal Beal (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2010 (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.