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 no consensus. BJ^Talk 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage hood[edit]

No sourcing, and I have doubts about the notability of this. rootology (C)(T) 00:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not seeing any evidence of non-trivial coverage by sources. --Rividian (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unreferenced bondage-cruft. WJBscribe (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking in the WP:RS department. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHere's another approach to sourcing: GB has a number of instances in fiction, including Hunt, David. The Magician's Tale. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1997. p59. 206, 214; and from a unquestionably famous author: Rushdie, Salman. The Ground Beneath Her Feet: A Novel. New York: Picador USA/Henry Holt and Co, 2000. p.376 -- and an actual academic work about that very point in that very novel, Gonzalez, Madelena. Fiction After the Fatwa: Salman Rushdie and the Charm of Catastrophe. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005.ISBN 9789042019621. p.149+ Interesting when people claim no RSs when they haven't looked (of course, before one could say that one would need to look through the tens of thousands of web results to see if a few met our standards. If you're wondering, I havent; that's why I though of GB.) Why claim that something any adult experienced with the web knows perfectly well is notable is not notable? Maintaining NOT CENSORED takes a little work in sourcing. DGG (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh the Rushdie book mentions "bondage hood" exactly once, in a passage where it's dropping the names of many sex-related items. The "academic work about that very point" merely quotes part of the passage and doesn't seem to even mention bondage hoods itself. These do not rise above trivial mentions. Wikipedia is not censored, but you seem to want to introduce the exact opposite bias... including any topic whatsoever if it's about sex. I'll put it this way, exactly what kind of article could we write using the sources (which is how we're supposed to write articles)? "Bondage hood is something mentioned by Salmon Rushdie on page 376 of a book. The passage was quoted in a book by Gonzalez. It was also mentioned in a book by Hunt". A properly sourced article wouldn't be an article at all. --Rividian (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article. Deleters must live in a bondage subculture if they find this all so commonplace and trivial. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did anyone say they found this commonplace? No deleters did. "interesting" is a classic invalid reason to keep an article... the closing admin should take that into account. --Rividian (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources with substantial coverage have been cited, despite some passing references pointed out above. Edison (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs sources, but that can be fixed. Common items used in less common sexual practices would seem to be notable. It may take greater effort to find sources, as the New York Times doesn't write about them often enough, but that doesn't mean sources (including print) can't be found. It is a real item, common enough to be notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources with non-trivial coverage exist, then they can be found. There might be wonderful sources about my cat, but I'm not going to create an article on the hope that they do. I'd actually have to see them first. Same with this article... we find sources first, per WP:V, rather than fill the article with content then hope some source somewhere backs it up. --Rividian (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went back to GBooks, this time for the non fiction.

SM 101: A Realistic Introduction By Jay Wiseman Published by Greenery Press, 1997 ISBN 0963976389, 9780963976383
Wild Side Sex: The Book of Kink : Educational, Sensual, and Entertaining Essays. Midori, Linda Santiman, and Steve Diet Goedde. W Los Angeles, CA: Daedalus, 2005.

I think there are probably about 50 more books in English dealing with S&M, and every one of them will discuss this. GB is very incomplete in this genre. It's also very incomplete for fiction, though there are about 8 or 10 more on the page. Probably many more using variants of the term. This is part of the general culture and used freely as such; it's part of the generally accepted defining costume for characters in certain situations. some more academic works on the fiction

Fantasies of Fetishism: From Decadence to the Post-human By Amanda Fernbach Published by Edinburgh University Press, 2002 ISBN 0748616160, 9780748616169
Sexual alienation in the cinema By Raymond Durgnat Published by Studio Vista, 1972 DGG (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources for claims like "This is part of the general culture and used freely as such; it's part of the generally accepted defining costume for characters in certain situations"? You have provided sources and I'll take your word that they mention this term, but more than casual mentions are needed for an article. People have made claims about how important this thing is, but what is the source? --Rividian (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Bondage hoods have made it from bondage subculture to (some) mainstream literature, movies, and TV. The popular TV show C.S.I., for instance, has had multiple episodes that revolved around bondage hoods. Some correspondents here suggest the references found so far are all "trivial". I suggest a phenomenon can merit coverage in a comprehensive, encyclopedic project, like the wikipedia, even if the mention in the current references seems "trivial". What seems "trivial" or "obvious" is culture specific, and can be tied to the observer's age, religion, education.

I agree completely with DGG, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored is pertinent here. SM may be an interest that is not universally shared, or even widely shared. But it is not an illegal activity. A few minutes with google scholar brings us references like this:

The players who talk about the spiritual dimensions of SM seem to be those who are involved in sensory deprivations, such as immobilization bondage with a blindfold or hood...

Or here:

Submission and bondage are immediately connected in many people's minds, and many of the devices used in bondage are also powerful signifiers of submissive status--the collar, the leash, the hood, wrist cuffs worn in lieu of bracelets. The goal during a scene of this type is to create a state of surrender and allow the bottom to go under and yield to your authority...

Or here:

A hurt hand or a fainting spell can ruin an otherwise amazing evening. Knowing which handcuffs to buy or checking a hood before you lace it onto someone's head is part of being a responsible, sexually active adult. It's no different than deciding what method of birth control you're going to use or practicing safe sex...

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:38, 5 October 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.