Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Byron Insert


 * 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 delete. Dakota 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Byron Insert
Non-notable sexual technique. Was deprodded by article's creator. (For reference the included images have since been deleted as violating CSD I3 - uploaded under a non commercial use license). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, throw WP:OR into the mixer as well. Daniel.Bryant 10:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:V plus totally unnotable according to various Internet search engines QuiteUnusual 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, No sources cited, assumed to be OR. - Crockspot 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This qualifies for speedy deletion, IMO. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lack of references makes me wonder if it's a hoax. Captainktainer * Talk 06:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable.Edison 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Source has been added. Creator of page is also owner of image, therefore allowing the creator to use that image. References are pornographic videos, with Latino Fan Club videos being the majority. 20:49, 23 October 2006
 * Comment 1. Do NOT delete the comments/votes of other editors. 2. Please sign your posts with four tildas. I've reverted your vandalism. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment User:172.193.136.25 has primarily targeted this article to spam promotion for Latino Fan Club.--Rosicrucian 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's my opinion-and feel free to disagree with this-that this article qualifies for a speedy delete, re: advertising/promotional spam. The topic is simply not encyclopedic in any manner, shape or form. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The topic gives information on a sexual position. If there is a page for the Venus Butterfly, there should be a page for this.  They are in no way different.  To call this page advertising is completely ridiculous.  If you are going to say that then you could say that the Venus Butterfly page is advertising L.A. Law, where the sexual position originated.  It also seems to me that because this sexual position is a homosexual sexual position and the Venus Butterfly is not, the people in this debate that are against the page are being homophobic towards it. You all seem to be looking for any small thing to get rid of this page.  As for "the topic is simply not encyclopedic in any manner, shape or form" comment, the topic allows you to comprehend what The Byron Insert is; therefore, it is "encyclopedic" as you said.  Although that is incorrect usage of the word "encyclopedic", just so you know.  As a way of providing the source, the Latino Fan Club was mentioned.  But that was VANDALIZED by someone, which I'm just going to guess is one of you who believes that to be advertising. 22:32, 23 October 2006
 * Comment Whether or not they are distinct or identical is irrelevant. And in any case you are not in any position to make a dispositive judgment in that regard. Wikipedia operates by consensus, which is why we are having this afd discussion in the first place. I suggest that you tone done your rhetoric-especially your absurd accusations of "homophobia"-try to maintain a more objective attitude about an article in which you obviously have a vested interest, and attempt to collaborate productively with other editors in the Wikipedia community. Thank you. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a debate, I'm giving my argument. Calling my accusations of "homophobia" absurd is, in fact, absurd because the same could be said about the accusations made towards the maker of "The Byron Insert" page about this page "advertising" the Latino Fan Club.  But considering you are for deleting this page I can only assume that the "advertising" accusation is allowed.  I am not for deleting this article, so "collaborating productively with other editors" could not fully apply to me.  I obviously have different views than they do and the only thing I am doing is expressing those different views.  Instead of attacking my views by calling them "absurd" and "irrelevant", perhaps YOU could try to maintain a more objective attitude and maybe, just maybe, attempt to collaborate productively with me, a fellow editor.  If it isn't clear enough to you yet, for what you said in this latest entry you are doing the exact same thing that you are telling me to stop doing.  So, I would like to suggest that you read and reflect upon my views on the topic of "The Byron Insert" in a positive way by not bashing my views and sharing with me and everyone else your views.  Thank you. 15:45, 25 October 2006
 * Comment First of all, please sign your remarks with four tildas. I don't know why your IP address-or user name-isn't showing up, but it isn't. Secondly, this is not a quorum or a debate. If you want to provide evidence that this article is not advertising or spam-other than referring to the promoter of the person who created that image-I suggest that you do so. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment By saying "spam" you are talking about what is considered spam on Wikipedia, which would be a different way of saying advertising. If you want evidence that it is not advertising then why don't you just remove the "Latino Fan Club" comment and the link to the Wikipedia page on the Latino Fan Club? Without those it would not be advertising, correct? But, as stated before, those were added on there to be a source as to where the information came from. Jt801 04:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You see, that is precisely the point. Without the link to a site advertising this sexual technique-presuming of course that it is not completely fictitious-there would be no sources-even that does not constitute a verifiable source-period. In other words, it would not even meet the qualification of being Spam or advertising, but would simply be gibberish or "patent nonsense," and thus qualify for speedy deletion, which it should qualify for in any case. Ruthfulbarbarity 17:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Your point is that you have no point. The first argument against this was that there was no source.  So because of that, a link to the Latino Fan Club website was added.  But once that was added, the argument became that it was advertising.  The page was not created with the link to the Latino Fan Club or with any mention of the Latino Fan Club.  But once someone wanted a source as to where the information came from, the link was added.  That right there should be proof that there was no advertising (spam) involved.  With you saying that it should qualify for speedy deletion in any case, just says that no matter what is added to it you believe it should be deleted.  Which would have to mean that your own morals are getting in the way of your decision making here on Wikipedia.  The Latino Fan Club is the source as to where the information came from.  It is not advertising (spam) and so "gibberish" and "patent nonsense" have no place here. 19:32, 26 October 2006
 * Comment Again-lest I remind you for the umpteenth time-this is not a debate. If it were, then this article would have been deleted three days ago. The Latin Fan Club-presuming that it is the only source that documents this alleged practice-is not a reliable source and citing it as one merely serves to illustrate the inherent weakness of your argument, yet again. Also, I would appreciate it if you sign your comments in the future. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be for the 2nd time and when did I say "debate" in my last entry? Nope, I didn't at all.  Thousands of pages are made based on sources like mine, no I don't mean pornographic distributor's websites but websites in general.  Which makes it a reliable source.  Have you visited the site before?  If not then you cannot call it an unreliable source.  As far as weak arguments go, you have no argument.  When asking for a source, one is provided.  When the page is called advertising, the link to the website is removed.  Like I said before, you are letting your own morals get in the way of things.  Does something like this really make you so uncomfortable that you have to spend so much time arguing about it?  To answer the question now floating around in your head, yes it is important to me that a page like this one be allowed on here which is why I am spending so much time arguing about it.  There are a lot of pages for sexual positions and sexual techniques here on Wikipedia, this one should not be excluded. 01:45, 27 October 2006
 * Comment You could not find a single website-outside of the promotional vehicle you linked to-which verifies this alleged sexual technique. It's as simple as that. Thousands of articles are not based upon the sourcing of one site. If they were, then they would be on their way to deletion. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:41, 27 October 2006 (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.