Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet (BDSM)

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pet (BDSM)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDICT, article lacks sources and doesn't seem like it will ever move past a stub. Bottom (BDSM), animal play, and Dominance and submission already exist. If it's not a dicdef it reads more like a dab page. Prodded, but was removed by creator. I support deleting above all, but a merge into that article (or another appropriate article) also seems like a good idea. — kikichugirl ^inquire 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to go with a merge with Animal roleplay (not Animal play. That redirects to something far more wholesome). After looking at a couple of blogs on the subject though it does seem the Animal roleplay article doesn't impress upon the reader the level of submissiveness that the BDSM community seems to consider a "pet" must endure. (See: The Main Types of Submission in BDSM: Submissive, Slave and Pet and BDSM Owner and pet Relationships) It seems as if Animal roleplay specifically has something to do with animals, whereas the BDSM pet-owner relationship is more about submissiveness. These might deserve seperate articles.

Keep in mind I'm not suggesting we use those two links as sources. We'd need more reliable sources. Maybe someone from the sexuality-related parts of Wikipedia would have some? DiscantX (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ------>[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dicdef, no citations given. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It does seem to be held together by the word, rather than a topic. If we have topics for each meaning, we should try to keep them focused. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search reveals what look like two potential sources ([1] [2]) but both are more or less primary and the latter is a blog, and two isn't much. All other hits seem to be blogs, erotic fiction and other assorted non-RS pages. Merge might be good too. ekips 39 07:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2014 (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.