Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ABC of Sex Education for Trainables


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The ABC of Sex Education for Trainables

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't seem to be notable at all. No sources cited. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that this is the second AFD for this article.  The prior AFD, Articles for deletion/THE ABC OF SEX EDUCATION FOR TRAINABLES was a move from an all caps title to its current title. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This was a serious educational effort when it was made, and mentions of it (sometimes under the variant title ABC's of Sex Education for Trainable Persons) do show up in assorted books about sex education for the mentally impaired.  A Google Books search is, as usual, constrained because many of the books are available only in snippet views, and for the most part the mentions seem to be limited to brief listings, for example  and more listings just like this.  Google Scholar turned up nothing else. The film was exhibited at UCLA's Hammer Museum in 2007, for whatever that may be worth.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 *  Leaning to keep Keep (upped from "leaning" per improvements and sources now added) We need someone who can look to see the content of those snippet views. Gonna be tough to find online coverage of a short educational film that predated the internet by 20+ years. However, even 36 years after initial release, it is receiving some sort of acknowledgement... LAist calls it a "classic"  and DVD Talk refers to it as a "marvel".  In it being re-released as part of a retrospective compilation of other outdated educational shorts as part of Fantoma's The Education Archives (2001), it is be referred to among "The best of the bunch".  In a review that addresses that scientific consideration of how to deal the film's topic has changed, and 31 years after its release, Ruthless Reviews addresses the film in detail.  I believe it is quite possible that through further research, the 1975 coverage of this film can be brought forward, as well as modern critique of its outmoded message, and the article improved. If editors have issue with it being improved while in mainspace, I would not be at all adverse to it being incubated for a short while.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If deletion fails, I would support Incubating it, although I don't think that the passing mentions somehow make it notable... WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 02:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From available sources, it is clear that this film, outdated now as it may be, was once the educational teaching method for those it terms "trainables". That the methodology taught at that time has fallen into disrepute now does not lessen its prior notability.  And quite rare that any pree-intenet short educational documentary might receive even a passing mention after 36 years, so its being postively mentioned, even if briefly, is reason to think more might be found. And as atated above, we need someone with access the full text of what is hinted at by the many snippet views found through a google book search, as its making it into the enduring record speaks volumes toward its notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but just because it was in wide use does not make it notable. Not every sex-ed video even if widely used is notable. Should I write an article about the short films Planned Parenthood produces now for sex-ed classes? I bet there are a lot of school newspapers that talk about them... not every video produced is notable. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schmidt. Lionel (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * delete - Trivial blurbs in some sources, while other longer reviews (ruthlessreviews.com?) do not appear to be from reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems notable for something from the pre-internet era, HOWEVER, what is the basis for claiming that this video has anything to do with Planned Parenthood? The video itself doesn't have that in the credits, IMDB doesn't say it, the DVD Talk review doesn't say it (and, in fact, credits it to "Fantoma Films").  I can only find sources derived from Wikipedia or Google Video that attribute it to Planned Parenthood. --B (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting this message at my talk page where another user states that the closing credits do say "members and staff of the Ronald Bruce Nippon Assoc., and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania". --B (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This video fits in the category of films that were filmed in a era with different sensabilities then today, similar to The Birth of a Nation. They are a part of the past and should be preserved as such, even if they may be embarrassing to the people or organizations that may have produced them.  This is just as notable as the tons of other vids and D-rated movies listed on WP.  This would be extrememly useful for people tracking different methods for dealing with sexuality through time.Marauder40 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing improvements by User:MichaelQSchmidt help establish that this has enough coverage to sustain an article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (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.