- 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. This AFD has been open for three weeks now and I don't see a consensus. No comments made since the last relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Florentine flogging ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced, no indication of notability. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Unsourced and is written like a "how-to" instruction. I just removed the link under References, because it was an advertisement for an individual. — Maile ( talk) 19:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, per above. Yeah there may be sources, but it is written like a game guide/how to. Draftifying could be a possibility. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify, per below. It can do some cleaning up. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
MergeI say merge main parts into relevant article(s) and leave a redirect. Stop with this speedy delete for all sexual articles. Biofase flame| stalk 21:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Have there been a lot of "speedy delete" for those types of articles?
— Maile (
talk)
00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Actually yes. It is common for new sexual or sexuality related articles to be the subject of speedy delete requests. It does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia policy is to rather try and improve articles. If something isn't sourced then add a source, if an article is lacking then tag it appropriately so it gets more attention and only remove dubious statements, if it's not large enough for its own article then include it in others.
Biofase
flame|
stalk
13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is hardly a new article. It's been tagged for lacking notability since 2010. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Actually yes. It is common for new sexual or sexuality related articles to be the subject of speedy delete requests. It does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia policy is to rather try and improve articles. If something isn't sourced then add a source, if an article is lacking then tag it appropriately so it gets more attention and only remove dubious statements, if it's not large enough for its own article then include it in others.
Biofase
flame|
stalk
13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Have there been a lot of "speedy delete" for those types of articles?
— Maile (
talk)
00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references, including ones from Rolling Stone and Cosmopolitan (magazine). Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Changing to keep with the recent changes.
Biofase
flame|
stalk
08:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- It can do a bit of cleaning up, so I’d recommend to draftify it. Brachy08 (Talk) 23:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep New edits suggest notability Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Impact play (with anchor). Of the four sources provided, the two which are independent reliable sources only mention it; the other two sources are more in-depth but are both specialised sites which offer classes in the technique (might well be expert, but aren't edited). The documentary mentioned in one of the Rolling Stone article might -- might -- be a sufficiently significant RS, but that would still leave WP:GNG clearly unmet. Even if evidence of notability were marginal, WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOTHOWTO also applies. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 09:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. This AFD has been open for three weeks now and I don't see a consensus. No comments made since the last relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Florentine flogging ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced, no indication of notability. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Unsourced and is written like a "how-to" instruction. I just removed the link under References, because it was an advertisement for an individual. — Maile ( talk) 19:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, per above. Yeah there may be sources, but it is written like a game guide/how to. Draftifying could be a possibility. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify, per below. It can do some cleaning up. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
MergeI say merge main parts into relevant article(s) and leave a redirect. Stop with this speedy delete for all sexual articles. Biofase flame| stalk 21:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Have there been a lot of "speedy delete" for those types of articles?
— Maile (
talk)
00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Actually yes. It is common for new sexual or sexuality related articles to be the subject of speedy delete requests. It does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia policy is to rather try and improve articles. If something isn't sourced then add a source, if an article is lacking then tag it appropriately so it gets more attention and only remove dubious statements, if it's not large enough for its own article then include it in others.
Biofase
flame|
stalk
13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is hardly a new article. It's been tagged for lacking notability since 2010. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Actually yes. It is common for new sexual or sexuality related articles to be the subject of speedy delete requests. It does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia policy is to rather try and improve articles. If something isn't sourced then add a source, if an article is lacking then tag it appropriately so it gets more attention and only remove dubious statements, if it's not large enough for its own article then include it in others.
Biofase
flame|
stalk
13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Have there been a lot of "speedy delete" for those types of articles?
— Maile (
talk)
00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references, including ones from Rolling Stone and Cosmopolitan (magazine). Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Changing to keep with the recent changes.
Biofase
flame|
stalk
08:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- It can do a bit of cleaning up, so I’d recommend to draftify it. Brachy08 (Talk) 23:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep New edits suggest notability Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Impact play (with anchor). Of the four sources provided, the two which are independent reliable sources only mention it; the other two sources are more in-depth but are both specialised sites which offer classes in the technique (might well be expert, but aren't edited). The documentary mentioned in one of the Rolling Stone article might -- might -- be a sufficiently significant RS, but that would still leave WP:GNG clearly unmet. Even if evidence of notability were marginal, WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOTHOWTO also applies. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 09:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.