Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Erotica


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Improvement in article space makes sense now that notability has been established. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Cradle of Erotica

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is in such rough shape that I have had to bring it to AfD for repair. There may be coverage in secondary sources, but I wouldn't say this article meets the GNG in its current condition. It also has major tone and style issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. AFD is not for repair... The stuff sourced to the book itself can be cut on sight. I found academic reviews in American Sociological Review Vol. 29, No. 1 (Feb., 1964), pp. 156-157  and The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science Vol. 55, No. 2 (Jun., 1964), pp. 271-272 Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (Withdrawing previously non-policy based! Vote) as non-notable Raj-era/Victoriana bullshit. Mostly sourced to the book itslf (so lacking WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources): "a female under the influence of hashish had the purported ability to have consecutive vaginal and anal sex with over one hundred men". Unsourced. "Arabian women engaging in copulation with several males at once". PTS. "Chinese Muslims and Buddhists are also notorious for using their servant boys as means of sexual release." What the fuck. What the actual fuck? " Female masturbation is seen as an outlet for girls’ frustration and aggressiveness", "Fellatio is also witnessed between men and their boy servants". All primary sourced WP:SYNTH and OR.Nuke from orbit. Total crap.  SN54129  08:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't approve of the contents of the book, a sentiment I share, is irrelevant to the prospect of this being an encyclopedic topic. I do however agree that everything sourced to the book itself should be nuked from orbit. Geschichte (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly normal for a summary of a book to be sourced to the book itself. Unfortunately in this case the book itself is full of nonsense. I'm also in favour of nuking that section regardless of the AfD outcome. -- asilvering (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: unfortunately for all of us this looks like a pretty clear WP:NBOOK pass. But if someone wanted to drop some WP:TNT on it I sure wouldn't complain. -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly a notable book based on the number of reviews. Also, I'm against nuking the summary section as those above have suggested. Based on the page numbers given in the references, the summary covers the general areas of the book fairly evenly. Only justification for WP:TNT seems to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT -- Ficaia (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ficaia However, MOS:PLOTSOURCE is about works of fiction, which afaict this is not. WP:PRIMARY#5 may be more relevant here. Sorry for leading you wrong, but you did say "plot." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the question then is whether the info in the summary section "analyzes, evaluates, interprets, or synthesizes". Does simply stating the contents of the work do this? Ficaia (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is a review, should be good for a GNG-point: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe that one was in the article already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - maybe a merge might be better if modern sources (like Boers) discuss this book as part of greater discussion on Edwardes' work. MSG17 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Masters, the second author, seems to be the same as the coauthor of the book Mind Games which inspired Mind Games (John Lennon song) (cf. ). He was a visible figure in 60s/70s counterculture. My experience with tracking down references in this area is that finding the references can be hard, but patience can yield high quality coverage. While only one of the two reviews found by gives clear SIGCOV, I think the chances are high that there is more out there. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - This AfD nom clearly fails WP:BEFORE and every sentence in it is contrary to the intent of AfD. If we didn't have a substantial delete opinion from I would be !voting keep on procedural grounds. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, —I've changed my !vote to a comment, as it was more subjective than policy based.    SN54129  11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I brought it mostly out of frustration for the article's contents, I will admit... It's hard with a book that was being described as "not a book" by vandals! The condition of the article was so odd I could not gauge the book's notability. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 14:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've certainly started at least one AfD with a nom that was on what was back then very dodgy policy grounds because it seemed the cleanest way to solve a problem in articlespace (my first nom was in this class, Articles for deletion/Stephen Schwartz (journalist)). Are you happy with the idea of cleaning up the article using regular editing? If so, by retracting your nom we can speedy close this AfD using WP:CSK rationale #1. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep - nom fails BEFORE, as per comment above, and no clear delete rationale has emerged in the course of this AfD. While the sourcing we have for the article isn't rock solid, there remains uncertainty as to whether there might be better sources. It looks like both of the authors might merit encyclopedic coverage, so the ATD merge opinion of doesn't seem attractive. The article clearly needs cleanup: with that, the article might be better suited to improve in articlespace. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2022 (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.