Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.sex.stories (3rd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator. Clearly I didn't so enough due diligence before nominating this. Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Alt.sex.stories
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the previous AFD noted, wikipedia standards move on. This is still inadequately sourced - indeed there is not a single satisfactory reliable secondary source listed here and this needs to be fixed if this is to be retained. The only reliable source listed mentions ASS in one line. GNG this does not meet and does not a sourced article make. Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - same rationale as the last discussion. The sources are out there that satisfies the GNG even if they are not listed/used in the article for whatever reason. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:WEBCRIT and WP:DIVERSE. Coverage limited to academic articles regarding Usenet. Blue   Riband►   23:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would you evaluate a usenet group as an event which applies to WP:DIVERSE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Quite aside from that coverage is not limited to academic publications -- the previous AfD has links to Computerworld and a book called The Joy of Cybersex, neither of which can be called "academic" -- there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia with similar attribution, and neither the GNG or IRS debars such sources. As I'm sure the nom's aware, WP:BEFORE mandates that before an AfD is filed, a nom must make a reasonable attempt to source the article.  I'm curious as to why such sources turned up at a casual search in the previous AfD, but that the nom couldn't find.   Ravenswing   01:51, 24 March 2014 (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.