Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex 3.0

: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. Does this make me a counter-sexolutionary? --BDD (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

=[[Sex 3.0]]=

:{{la|Sex 3.0}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sex_3.0 Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sex 3.0}})

I deleted this as a G11, but it was challenged. Rather than argue, I bring it here, as usual for anything written in good faith; I think the author really believes this to be an encyclopedia-worthy article, though it's clear to me that the intent is to promote his book and blog. The nature of the sources with the references to the editors own book was by basis for the decision to use Speedy. There are a few scattered uses to various possible meanings of the term on Google, but almost all of the hits are to the editor's blog and reader posted reviews of his self-published book. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete, the speedy should really have succeeded. Straightforward promotion/advertising, an abuse of Wikipedia by an SPA with no intention other than selling. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sorry, Mr Gray, but this is not what Wikipedia's for. You'll need to wait until there are reliable, independent sources.—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete sales spam. OR. and tosh. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I challenged the deletion for a number of reasons

1.An open source movement and a book are two different things. Just like the apache webserver software and the famous book "Apache: The Definitive Guide" are two different things. This page makes no metion or reference to the book. The external links at the bottom to the blog and the book were added by a wiki admin, not myself. They can easily be removed.

2.References in this discussion in other comments to "sales spam" are not accurate. There is no product. This is an open source sexual revolution movement with some notable members including Dossie Easton who has been working in this field since 1960s in San Francisco and who is a qualified family therapist with several decades of experience as well as other notable sex educators and sex positive speakers.

3.When you ask reliable third party sources, sorry but this is my first wiki page, for point number two above, if I produced say a video clip of Dossie saying that she is a member of this movement, would that be an example of a reliable third party source?

4. This movement is not only the world's first open source sexual revolutionary movement, it is also crowd sourced. This is the exact same model as wikipedia only within the sex positve realm. I am hoping for support from people like yourselves who truly understand the value of open source and crowd funding. Thank you. Pizza Lord (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I think this paragraph from the article makes the point:

A person who is for example a sex educator who is sex positive and whose work is Sex 3.0 compatible is considered a sexolutionary (a contraction of the words 'sexual revolutionary'). A person who has read the book or even just the wiki page and follows the blog posts on the official site and helps to spread the word is a sexolutionary. A person who learns Sex 3.0 and talks to only their primary partner about it is still spreading the 3.0 revolution and is therefore considered a sexolutionary.

The article is trying to be part of this "sexolutionary" movement. Therefore it is promoting the ideas. You seem to be stuck on the notion that you can only promote something tangible, but the article is clearly promoting the movement. In addition there is no evidence that this movement has attained notability by Wikipedia standards. In conclusion, delete. LadyofShalott 02:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • @LadyofShalott, No that paragraph simply explains the non-hierarchical nature of the movement. Real change has to start at the grass roots level and has to be energised by an army of empowered curators. As someone who is part of the wikipedia movemnt, I am suprised that I need to point this out. You are arguing against your own model. Pizza Lord (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Deleteeeee as OR promo material. Ansh666 03:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as no significant 3rd party coverage. As the subject itself is "real", no prejudice against recreation at some further date AFTER reliable sources have been found, but recreation would NOT be based on this article, but would begin as a stub using only info covered by sources.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2013 (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.