Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginative Sex


 * 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 keep. PeaceNT (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Imaginative Sex

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was speedily deleted by JzG and overturned on deletion review. The current draft reflects a version that was re-written and is substantially different than the version deleted, but some notability concerns may remain. Procedural nomination, so I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- As far as I can tell, this is being nominated for deletion on purely technicalistic-formalistic grounds, since it was revived through "Deletion Review", after having been unilaterally speedily-deleted without any process. But the article has been revised to respond to the some of the speedily-deleting admin's objections (insofar as those were understood), and the article can easily be further improved in future by someone who has access to the proper source materials (which I unfortunately haven't had access to, or I would have tried to improve the article long ago).  I'm not sure why we should be having a deletion discussion at this time, unless there's someone here who actually wants the article to be deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. With regard to notability, this is not only a book by somewhat controversial author John Norman, but it was also a kind of pioneering early BDSM manual, published about 15 years before the term "BDSM" itself was even invented. Since it was distributed through normal science fiction paperback distribution channels, and sold in mainstream bookshops in the science-fiction section, it was sold in many places where sex books usually weren't...  The introduction to the republished 1996 edition by influential BDSMer Pat Califia apparently establishes the significance of the book in its original 1974 context, but I don't have access to it... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This information should probably be in the article. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A kind soul just sent me a scan of the Pat Califia introduction, so I'll be incorporating references to that right away... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For what reasons? Spartaz Humbug! 10:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The nomination doesn't provide any reasons - it's just "procedural". It appears that the nominator has not in fact followed the process per Before nominating an AfD.  The process in this case should be to dismiss the nomination with a Speedy Keep.  As for the book, I consider it adequately notable.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, it is common and established procedure for an article overturned at deletion review. Lankiveil (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete Neither source provided appears to be reliable and the first does not appear to address the book - being a tangential essay. There is no reason why this content can't be covered in the John Norman article if proper reliable sources can be found for it. Spartaz Humbug! 10:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is of non-obvious notability, but after reading the article I'm fairly convinced that it did have significance within the history of BDSM and whatnot. The references are so-so but probably sufficient.  Given the author has his own article as well, I see nothing out of the ordinary about keeping this article. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently notable within its genre. DGG (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but as it was already cleaned up during DRV, why are we here anyway? --Reinoutr (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2008 (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.