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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belting (beating) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

6 years without a single reference. this can be a redirect to corporal punishment, id do it myself without comment, but that may be to bold for some. the external link is not a reliable source. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - no, the external link isn't necessarily a reliable source but these should be enough to kick off a re-write:

• Scottish Education: Post-devolution which contains a nice section on kids "getting the belt".
• Promoting effective enforcement of the prohibition against corporal punishment in South African schools includes a section on the legal precedents for a prohibition on the use of "the belt".
• A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights which includes a section on the history of "the belt", in particular, and other corporal punishment with regard to human rights.
• A Child's Right to a Healthy Environment which actually includes reference to a New York Times article that described certain southern US states as the "Belt Belt".

"Getting the belt" in the context of corporal punishment has a long and culturally significant history with regard to both formal educational and private discipline in eras-since-passed where corporal punishment was far more socially acceptable. But it has its own history away from other forms of corporal punishment, making redirection or deletion inappropriate. The current version is a mess of unverified original research. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:04, 17 September 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.