Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fever Parties

Article Fever Parties listed on WP:VFD Apr 27 to May 3 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Advert. DJ Clayworth 22:00, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - but put at least the opening few paragraphs on BJAODN. Smerdis of Tlön 23:59, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:40, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As well as being an advert it's also factually incorrect: Fever Parties are also distinguished from other swingers groups in Britain (which only allows sex clubs for gays) -- Graham  :) | Talk 01:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. (discussion moved to talk by DJ Clayworth) (signed for) User:Hela and fellah

End discussion

Archived discussion that was moved to article talk page

Long discussion moved from VfD page:

1 It is relevant sociological information for anyone studying swinging and the biggest (only?) development in the subject since AIDS.

2 It is a name and concept well known in the UK.

3 It is not an advert as (a) this organisation is a not-for-profit association (b) nobody looks in an encyclopaedia to find sexual opportunities (c) this group is elitist and does not seek a wider market.

4 It is not factually inaccurate. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 legalised group sex for men but not for women. Women's rights to group sex in Great Britain are violated by much case law that defines prostitution and brothels much more widely than is commonly understood, to include swingers and swingers clubs. There are thousands of gay bars, clubs and saunas with alcohol licenses but no couples clubs. No gay bar owners are ever charged because of what happens in their back rooms. A swingers club was closed down and its owner convicted in 1998. Both de jure and de facto group sex/swinging is allowed to gays whereas it is not allowed to heterosexuals and bisexual women. The full deatils can be read at http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/socin/socin028.pdf

5 Some products cannot have serious entries without their manufacturer/supplier being mentioned e.g. Viagra/Pfizer. How is this different?

Hela


 * I admit that my knowledge of the law since the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is a bit sparse; under the Gross Indecency Act 1967 sex clubs were illegal in ANY circumstances because it provided the possibility for gay men to have sex with each other with other people present (be it a straight club or gay club). If this has been repealed in the new Act of 2003 then I withdraw that statement.  Nonetheless the article is still an advert for a website (whether it makes a profit or not), it is extremely POV, I'm in the UK and I've never heard of it and I don't think it can be compared to viagra.  Once Fever Parties get a mention on Richard and Judy then I'll cut you some slack, until then I stick to my delete vote.


 * By the way your vote to keep above doesn't count: votes by anons don't count on vfd, you need a log-in if you want your vote to be counted.


 * -- Graham :) | Talk 12:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Graham

Thanks for the tip about logging in.

Yes you are out of date on the law on gay sex. The whole privacy requirement was swept away by the 2003 Act.

Richard & Judy you say? Well they were the cover story in three sections of the Sunday Times one day last year and the cover story in the Spectator the same week. There was a programme about them on Radio 1 last week, pieces in Tribune and Metro earlier this month, the Sunday Times again in January. You only need to read the media section of their website to see how widely they have been reported, big features in top mens' and women's magazines (Cosmo, Elle, Arena)and full page articles in national newspapers (Daily Mail, Sunday Express, The Guardian) including getting in the Daily Mail's top 5 most talked about parties of 2003. The stuff you complain about being POV is reported in all this coverage.

Fine if the website link needs to be taken out to conform to the rules. Perhaps the whole thing needs to be put as a subsection within the 'swinging' definition? But to remove all mention of this significant social trend that has extended the boundaries of those engaging in group sex from jaded suburban marrieds to fashionable metropolitan youngsters is unwarranted.

IMHO.

Hela Hela and fellah

(moved by DJ Clayworth)

End archived discussion