Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual

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

:({{Find sources|Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual}})

non-notable book, apparently self-poublished. Not even in WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Appears to be quite non-notable. CreateSpace is a self-publishing service. (While it it possible for self-published works to achieve notability, I see nothing to support the idea that this book is.) LadyofShalott 04:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nominator and LadyofShalott.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Seems to be marked for deletion by an admin only on the basis that it is self-published. Extremely positive amazon reviews suggest that this book is an important transformational text in the area of human sexual psychology.

The book already hit number one on amazon during the 5 day promo period (screenshot on the right)

This book is currently the inspiration of a movie that is currently being made (pre-production stage) in San Francisco and Los Angeles featuring number sex positive authors and speakers including Chris Ryan (coauthor of Sex At Dawn), Dossie Easton (author of Ethical Slut) and many more.

Trailer, kickstarter page and offical movie website are all due to be launched in the next 3 to 4 weeks and are set to focus on the open-source nature of Sex 3.0 as a movement (not Sex 3.0 the book - these are 2 different things) AND NOT THE BOOK. The free and open-source nature of the movement is the only thing I have written about on wikipedia.

I also have to comment that I am dismayed that I have been given a final warning for using wikipedia to promote a book when this page (the book promotion page) was created by wikipedia admins and not me. The link to the amazon page for the book was created by wiki admins and not me and I am being threatened with a ban as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Lord (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

:*Well... the thing is that Amazon rankings don't matter on Wikipedia. Selling well on any format only increases the chances that the book will actually get coverage. It's not a guarantee and we've had people who have had books achieve the New York Times Bestseller lists, yet those books still don't pass notability guidelines. In this particular instance the book hit the Amazon list because it was free. That definitely doesn't help give the notability because it's fairly common for people to load up on free books on Amazon. As far as it becoming a movie, that in itself doesn't mean that the book is notable. It just means that there might be a movie. Even if it does get made, that doesn't guarantee notability. If the movie gets made and becomes notable, then it could help extend notability. Now when it comes to the book spawning a movement, you'd have to prove that it's a notable movement by showing coverage in reliable sources. That's really the crux of a notability argument on Wikipedia: can you prove that the book is notable by providing sources that are reliable? By this I mean that the sources aren't non-notable blogs, sources released by the author or anyone representing him, or routine announcements or database entries. I'll see what I can find, but I'll be honest and say that the book being self-published means that it's less likely that there will be any sources. Sometimes self-published books can achieve notability, but it's uncommon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

:*"...[T]his page (the book promotion page) was created by wikipedia admins and not me." Oh? Then please explain "15:16, 2013 April 13‎ Pizza Lord (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (294 bytes) (+294)‎ . . (←Created page with 'Sex 3.0 is a sexual revolutionary movement which began in 2011. It defines the three eras of mankind as Sex 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 with 1.0 being all of human history ...')" (bolding mine). LadyofShalott 11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

::*Nevermind, I see that Lugia2453 turned your article about the movement into an article about the book and added the Amazon link. Lugia is not an admin. Turning an article about the movement into one about the book was not unreasonable, but the Amazon link should never have been added. LadyofShalott 11:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Here's the problem: this book hasn't received any real coverage in what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source and I can't really find anything that would back up the claims of the book spawning a movement or inspiring a movie. Most of what I found comprised of non-usable blog reviews, primary sources, junk hits, and a few merchant sources. Nothing that would show notability. Nothing about this is notable at this point in time. Now don't get upset- this doesn't mean that the idea of the book is bad or that the movement can't one day gain notability. It just means that this isn't notable per Wikipedia. The big issue here is that you've created two pages about a non-notable movement, one of which was deleted due to it sounding very promotional in tone. An article doesn't have to be actively asking for money for a physical product in order to sound like it's promoting something. What doesn't help your case out any is that at one point both articles were pretty much the same, which kind of backs up the idea that this was more about using Wikipedia as a platform to promote the movement. Whether you meant to do this or not, the book and the movement are not notable and this is going to be a delete as far as I'm concerned. I would highly recommend not attempting to re-upload anything about this movement on Wikipedia, as that would likely get you blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking sufficient notability for inclusion here. Smells promotional. All the arguments have already been made for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete A free book with 'sex' in the title will make the top of any download list, I'm sure. But so far I fail to see its notability.  Yintan  11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Being self-published is not, in itself, a reason to delete. However, being self-published and completely unnoticed by secondary sources is. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:30, 23 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.