Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't


 * 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   '''Userfy: Primary editor requested userfication. Consensus to delete, plus that request means I'm closing this early.'''. Primary editor requested userfication. Consensus to delete, plus that request means I'm closing this early. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What Men Know that Women Don't

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is almost entirely quoted copyrighted text. I'm left with the distinct impression that this a promotional piece. Of the two WP:RS-looking sources, the Irish Times source is just a search for "Zubaty" and the Harvard Crimson source has only a few scant details about an apparent rally to promote an earlier verson of the book in 1995. The publisher, Virtualbookworm.com, likely falls under vanity press considerations. An article on the author was deleted earlier this year. I believe this article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article pic, File:Whatmencover.jpg, appears to have WP:COPYRIGHT issues. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is short, as I expected. (Sorry couldn't help that. :-) ) Anyway it seems to be semi-self published by the sound of Virtualbookworm, the publisher, so not notable. Perhaps an article on the author, Rich Zubaty, would work. Borock (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess What??? (Sorry about the triple question mark.) There used to be an article on the author, Rich Zubaty. But guess what? It got deleted. Why? There was no reference to an another article on any work produced by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A self published book, with no significant coverage of either the book or the author in reliable sources and held in a grand total of 23 libraries world wide. Note that I have removed from the article significant amounts of verbatim pasted text from http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/01/12/31/0616240.shtml as a copyright violation and further removed excessive quotation in violation of Non-free content. Please see also Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty and its associated talk page for why the author is also not notable. Voceditenore (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NBOOK.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Voceditenore (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  Eagles   24/7   (C)  23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per discusison aboveSadads (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per discusison above by User:Voceditenore  He  iro  01:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The expression "vanity press" is a little outdated since with modern Internet publishing and marketing an author can self-publish a book and expect to make a profit if it sells at all. So no longer "vanity." Borock (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agenda Behind Demands for Deletion Somewhere out there today is another Vincent Van Gogh who could really use a wikipedia page to keep bread on his table, but you will never know him because of your predilection for the old and the staid and the hugely publicized over the new and the controversial and the almost, but not quite, unknown. If Rich Zubaty was a feminist would we even be having this discussion? Has any feminist, EVER, been deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In answer to your question, just some of the articles about feminists deleted via discussion, with an excerpt from the original article: AFD: JeeYeun Lee ("JeeYeun Lee is a queer theorist. She is an Asian-American Bi-sexual woman, who is indeed a feminist...")  AFD: Carlin Ross  ("Carlin Ross is a sex-positive feminist blogger and attorney...")  AFD: Bridget Irish ("Bridget Irish ...is an American performance artist, lesbian feminist and Marxist...")  AFD: Katherine Hanson ("Katherine Hanson is an American feminist. In the 1990s, she was the head of an organization known as the Women's Educational Equity Act Publishing Center...")  AFD: Nina (poet) ("her poems discuss issues such as pregnancy, female liberation, racial equality...her poems attack and criticize sexual and societal mores and taboos, especially those associated with and promoted by Christians, (especially the Roman Catholic Church) conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, and even moderates and socialists who are not socialist enough...").  Many more have been deleted via the Proposed deletion process or speediliy deleted as unambiguous advertising/no credibile claim to notability. Most of the original articles can be found on Deletionpedia. Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Just for the record, any decisions to delete are NOT unanimous. Do not delete. Lew Loot (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails wikipedia's notability requirements. To Lew Loot, nobody here is putting forth a bias for or against feminism or any other aspect of the book's content. What we are concerned with here is establishing whether the topic is notable based upon wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I suggest you carefully read Notability (books) which clearly explains what this criteria is. If you feal that What Men Know that Women Don't does meet this criteria, please make a statement to that effect here which explains your reasoning for that viewpoint.4meter4 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, see earlier discussions on this subject. Lew Loot, it does not have to be unanimous .. you really think that if you were the only vote to keep that then the consensus would be keep?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE We've been through this all before with the same cast of characters: Beestra, Voiceditnore. You people don't like the topic and want to see it banished. But this book meets sufficient requirements of for inclusion. It has been in print for 17 years in two different editions. Tens of thousands of men and women around the world have read it and hundreds have provided personal positive testimonials as to its value (which you won’t accept as verification of notability). It’s simply the BEST BOOK ABOUT MEN ever written, with Susan Faludi’s “Stiffed” coming in a close second. Hundreds of copies have been stolen from libraries by feminists who do not believe in free speech. Leo Tolstoy and Mark Twain self-published because any writer with a following knows that by self-publishing you can keep your book in print indefinitely, rather than having it go into remainders after three months. What kicked this episode off is that Zubaty was just interviewed by a writer for the Globe and Mail in Canada so we prepared this page thinking we would have a sufficiently large and current cite to accompany the Irish Times, and the Harvard Crimson...and then editors at that paper sliced out any mentions of Zubaty for political reasons...but we decided to go ahead and submit this book page anyway with Svoboda’s online book review. Your methods are classically feminine. You do not like the topic, have decided it does not belong on wikipedia, and now are lurching around looking for ways to justify that decision. It’s all in the book. You’ll delete it, like you did Zubaty’s personal page, despite the fact that it qualifies in every way for inclusion. But word is getting around that though wikipedia safely handles any safe topic, it allows itself to be bullied by the tyranny of the majority on anything controversial. Well, good luck with your uncyclopedia, aggregator of popular knowledge that can be found on line. You are like the Popular Mechanics of intelligent thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)   — 72.234.207.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment "we prepared this page"? The page was created by . You have edited it extensively, and in these two rather uncivil comments  on my talk page today, you refer to What Men Know that Women Don't as your book and your page. You need to read WP:Conflict of interest and of course WP:Notability (books). The latter is what the outcome of this discussion will be based on, nothing else. These guidelines have been pointed out to you many times, by many editors. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

what Men know about hypocrisy I asked you Voceditenore what your name is and where YOUR book is and you refuse to say. This book has been in print for 17 years, has sold 25,000 copies worldwide, received hundreds of personal letters and emails noting it's valuable contributions to gender issues. In the last 17 years I have done over 200 radio shows on this book and its’ men’s topics. In the last six months youtube hosted 19,000 downloads to 40 different countries of the What Men Know That Women Don't video. It’s been reviewed by the Irish times and the Spokane Spokesman, numerous online reviewers, and I, as it s author have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Crimson, Transitions Men’s magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and numerous other men’s publications and some feminist publications. The Sterling Institute of relationship wikipedia page uses it as a cite for their men’s organization. But though it is the best book ever written in human history about MEN, but because it is despised by feminists, it is blacklisted in most main stream media. No...you have already decided to delete this page. You are just looking for justifications. No one here is looking to improve the article. Your snap judgments revolve around how few libraries have the book when hundreds of copies have been stolen from libraries by feminist harpies who have no love for free speech. You are arrogant and prejudiced and the only reason I’m writing this is because I want it archived. Lewis worked hard putting this together and you have no business deleting this. Rich Zubaty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk • contribs)
 * No one wants to improve the article, because it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. If you are, indeed, the author of this book, then you have a conflict of interest. It doesn't matter how many radio shows you have done to promote this book, or how many downloads on YouTube it has, it is not notable.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

17 years of notability This book is notable to tens of thousands of people who have some appreciation for men's issues which clearly is none of you. While I spend my days fighting against war and fighting corporate greed, you spend your time cruising around anonymously looking for preoccupied worker bees like me to victimize. There's a word for that. This book has sold small amounts every month for the past 17 years and has appreciable amounts of notability as stated above, and nothing you imply is going to eliminate that. As I said, Lewis worked hard on this and I can't believe you hypocrites are going to delete him again. That’s why I’m coming to his aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Zubaty, you are going to need to prove that this book meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for books. Just asserting its notability by vaguely saying that thousands of people have bought it (along with your usual incivility and personal attacks) is not going to cut it. Also, please stop pretending that Lew Loot isn't you.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Back in May, his incendiary remarks during the AfD debate warranted deletion of his comments. He's most recently been warned about posting remarks in this current article's discussion page without proper user-tagging. I see now that Rich Zubaty himself has "signed" a comment from the previously anonymous IP 72.234.207.192. Mr. Zubaty's edits to this and prior related articles violate WP:NPOV & WP:COI. Wikipedia is not the proper forum for him and other Zubaty "fans" to garner free advertising for his books and website. DennisDallas (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article author Lew Loot has been previously chastised on his behavior regarding a prior attempt at "establishing" the notability of Rich Zubaty & his self-published works.
 * Delete I can't find sufficient reliable sources to support the assertion of notability for this book. And if I were the author, I'd spend a little more time tracking down links to reviews and other coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and a little less time insulting the editors here, since only one of those activities is likely to keep the article from being deleted. If you've gotten reviews in the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Sun-Times, for crying out loud, post some links to them here! Or if not links, at least dates so we can look them up. Demonstrating press coverage of your book is a much, much better use of your time here if your goal is to keep the article. 28bytes (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * LOTS MORE CITES

Thank you 28bytes, for showing a sincere interest. You are the first one. If you will be kind enough to show us HOW to present this information, we will follow your advice to the T.

..................................

First off, Lew is in Luxembourg. I am in Hawaii. We are NOT the same person. He is one of the thousands of people who read my book, got a lot out of it. and wants to help.........

ANY ONLINE SEARCH FOR THE BOOK SHOULD INCLUDE BOTH NAMES........

Surviving the Feminization of America (original name 1993) What Men Know That Women Don't (2003)

same book, two editions......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 October 2010
 * Note that the remainder of this message posted lengthy verbatim copies of articles etc. To make the actual discussion easier to follow and edit, I have moved this to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't where editors can examine it and advise. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mr. Zubaty, for providing those links. I can't promise they'll tip the balance of the discussion towards keeping the article, but that's certainly the right approach to take in advocating for the book's notability. 28bytes (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Summary of the information/links provided at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't:
 * Mentions of Zubaty in 3 articles by the same author in the opinion section of The Irish Times, including one which reviews both his book and a play by another author which begins: "I want to mention two artistic works from last year, each in its own way obscure, which, by virtue of being overlooked, indicate the kinds of discussion we seek to avoid."  (Link currently in article and has never been removed)
 * A brief article in the Harvard Crimson describing a demo organized by Zubaty where he was publicizing his book  (Link currently in the article)
 * Text from a non-available article in the Wall Street Journal  which appears to basically quote this article in the Cornell Sun, but adds: "The paper, however, misses another Zubaty tome, What Men Know That Women Don't, described on his web site as 'the book that unshames men and frees your brainwaves for recovery from Feminism'."
 * A reprint of an article by Zubaty (but not about him or his book) which originally appeared in The Washington Times.
 * An article by Zubaty (but not about him or his book) which originally appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times Commentary section, October 29, 1994 (reprinted here)
 * Notes on "What Men Know That Women Don't" by Lion Kimbro on Kimbro's self-published website. Lion Kimbro's Wiki  in which Kimbro says that he has not actually read the book. The notes are based primarily on Svoboda's review on another "open contribution" website, mensactivism.org  (already linked in the article)
 * Excerpt quoted from a web site "Brother to Brother Culture Comments" (no link provided and I could find no trace of the web site)
 * Apparently interviewed with others in "Peace Accord Will Women and Men Ever Learn to Resolve Their Differences and Just Get Along?", The Spokesman-Review, October 23, 1994, although it's behind a subscription wall, so I don't know what it says.

Other reliable sources which I've found (although all but the Male View and possibly the Culture Wars) are extremely brief mentions of either the book or Zubaty: I had originally provided the above sources (apart from Male View) at Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty. Note also that the Mens' Studies Press (founded in 1992) publishes five peer-reviewed journals, one of which is the journal of the American Men's Studies Association. I searched all five journals from 1992 to the present for "Zubaty" and could not find a mention. I also searched "Zubaty" in their 2008 International Guide to Literature on Masculinity: A Bibliography with zero results. Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Additional sources added by Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A 1999 review of Surviving the Feminization of America from Male View (ISSN 1361-1968). The magazine is no longer published.  The article can found at Highbeam Research, to which I have subscription access.
 * Culture Wars (magazine), "Selling Contempt", Ultramontane Associates/American Center for Law and Justice, Vol. 20, 2000 (only snippet views, but looks like it might deal substantially with Surviving the Feminization of America)
 * Kaye, Miranda; Tolmie, Julia, "Discoursing Dads: The Rhetorical Devices of Fathers' Rights Groups", Melbourne University Law Review, April 1998 (Zubaty's article, "Reuniting Fathers with Their Families" in the Washington Times cited in a footnote)
 * Klein, Ellen R., Undressing feminism: A philosophical exposé, (Series: Paragon Issues in Philosophy), Paragon House, 2002. ISBN 1557788111 (Surviving the Feminization of America p. 61 cited in a footnote)
 * Boyd, Susan B. et al.. Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change, University of British Columbia Press, 2007. ISBN 077481411X (brief mention of  Zubaty as one of 9 authors whose writings are derivative of works published in the 70s and 80s and footnoted to What Men Know That Women Don't)
 * Ducat, Stephen, The wimp factor: gender gaps, holy wars, and the politics of anxious masculinity, Beacon Press, 2004. ISBN 0807043443 (brief analysis of the cover image of Surviving the Feminization of America)
 * Parke, Ross D. and Brott, Armin A. Throwaway dads: the myths and barriers that keep men from being the fathers, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1999, ISBN 0395860415 (brief mention of Surviving the Feminization of America under the heading "New Misogynists")
 * Preston, John, "Blast those dungarees", Sunday Telegraph, 30 January 2000) via Highbeam Research (brief mention in a review of an episode of the BBC2 programme, Counterblast: "After 15 minutes, however, he was starting to run out of steam. He'd already called on the services of a like-minded American with the unlikely name of Rich Zubaty, described simply as "an author", who provided the usual array of meaningless statistics that these occasions demand. "Did you know that 19 out of every 20 people who die on the job are men?" Rich announced, at which George could only shake his head and mutter "Middle-class dykes", in a distracted sort of way."
 * Goodman, Marshall Rockford, Karla Marx, lulu.com, 2008, ISBN 0557002966 (a self-published book, so very marginally a reliable source, but has a quote from What Men Know that Women Don't)

Thank you to Voceeditnore for this collation. Too bad so many of the cites I noted are missing from it. I recommend everyone who intends to vote on this looking over the entire body of evidence I presented. Furthermore, I find it remarkable that she wishes to start a list of all the places I am not mentioned. Feminism is not monolithic and neither is men's studies. There are factions and they fight with each other. Mythopoetic, men’s rights, father’s issues, circumcision and on and on. Moreoever, there are no men’s studies programs at any university in America and no degrees in such, therefore there are few publications and little literature and no academic support. Most of the best writing in this field has been by non-academics. Saying that What Men Know That Women/Surviving the Feminization of America has nothing to say about men’s studies is like saying Gone with the Wind has nothing to say about the ante-bellum South. At some point the academic statisticians have to just stand back and take it in............
 * MORE CITES

Here is what was said about me by one magazine editor in the last wiki deletion episode:.......

_______________________________ Do Not Delete I was involved in the publishing of Transitions, the newsletter of the National Coalition For Men (ncfm.org) for over 10 years, including 4 years as chief editor. Some of our past issues are archived at (http://www.californiamenscenters.org/transitionsbrown.html). NCFM is an educational organization that examines discrimination against men and boys. I can assure you that Rich Zubaty is notable in the field of men's issues. As evidence of this, we printed an excerpt of his book "What Men Know That Women Don't" in the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of Transitions. We printed a review of his book "The Corporate Cult" in the March/April 2002 issue, and a news article about his internet podcast in the Jan/Feb 2006 issue. Wikipedia should consider that the field of men's rights does not get a lot of attention, for various political reasons. That Zubaty was able to earn the list of references that have been provided in this discussion should be seen as a noteworthy accomplishment. Many of the references are from web sites related to men's issues, but many are not, including the WSJ and The Harvard Crimson. As men's issues is still a growing field, many of our references will come from sources with an interest in the subject. For verifiability, all you need to do is go to Amazon and see that his books are for sale. The content of Zubaty's writing is not in question; the article simply states that he wrote those books. They are available and the sales have not been insignificant. The article does need to be improved, and this can be done once this case is settled. Jwleath (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC) _______________________________
 * Beginning of message copied from Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty
 * End of copied message

I am sitting back here pretending that this is all hapening sensibly. But this is how I was lulled into deletion last time. Voceeditnore led the charge to delete me last time. And she’s doing it again, all the while feigning objectivity. Unless one of you administrators comes forward to challenge her attempts to “organize” this information, this effort on behalf of fair treatment for men will be all for naught. Her very first move was to delete any and all references to the Waters/Irish Times articles. My strongest cites. Just wipe them out before anybody saw them. This is not above board behavior. The Brits have a great tradition of politely and patronizingly tearing people apart. I have never considered that civil in any sense. It’s the epitome of rudeness. I’m doing my best to rein myself in, but I don’t want anyone else to be lulled into believing this is all moving along nicely and sanely now. There has been a great emphasis on where I do not appear, and no research from you administrators on where I DO appear. WE don’t have the search tools you have.

Also, edited out of the above collation is mention of the 200 plus radio shows I appeared on including CFRB Tonornto, WGN Chicago, Australian Broadcasting Company Sydney, and Perth, and hundreds more in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and across Canada, which had a particular hunger for what I had to say when the book first came out in 1994. Also TV: Montel Williams, CLTV Chicago, Morton Downy Jr. and others – all of these devoted to examinations of the newly published Surviving the Feminization of America. Someone has the search tools to find those and it does not do us justice for them to be buried off in some other file held somewhere else offline. Voceeditnore sabotaged me once before, and I’d be a fool to think she will not do it again. While pretending to be polite and diligent and objective, she is ignoring evidence (like my electronic media and San Francisco Chronicle exposures) and floating sly insinuations about how I do not appear in emasculated academic publications. Not kosher.72.234.207.192 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think the Irish Times reference was hidden, it's right there in the list, and in the article too. And for the record, Wikipedia doesn't give us any special search tools when we sign up for an account here; we use Google just like everyone else. 28bytes (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, at no time did I remove any of the links to the sources. I removed copyright infringing text only and left the links to the sources. The article created by Lew Loot consisted of pasted-in verbatim chunks of copyright material from this source which had to be removed per WP:COPYVIO. Likewise, the excessive verbatim quote from The Irish Times which exceeded the fair use limits for non-free text. I cut the quote down but left the link to the reference. I had warned Lew Loot about this when he had first created the article in the Sandbox and provided links to the relevant guidance pages on his talk page. I strongly urge both Mr. Zubaty and Lew Loot to read those guidance pages. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the one column by Zubaty in the San Francisco Chronicle that I could find. It was in the "Open Forum" section of the paper. However, it is a piece written by Zubaty, not about him, and does not attest to the significance of What Men Know that Women Don't. Mr. Zubaty may not like the criteria at Notability (books), but those are the ones that he will have to work with if he wants the article kept. Voceditenore (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the place where Voceditenore completely removed the John Waters Irish Times material referring to it as a failed verification when in fact it is a link to THREE Irish Times mentions of me and my book.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Men_Know_that_Women_Don%27t&diff=388768204&oldid=388765475


 * We have already been through the rigmarole about how I am not a notable person. Fine. But my book has been a notable book for 17 years. That’s how I got on vast amounts of electronic media and got to write articles for the Sun-Times and San Francisco Chronicle and many others. The book is my credential. No one gets to write for those kinds of publication just because he “wants to”. You need a passport. An acknowledgement of notability. A book. This book took four years to write.


 * Here is the wiki criteria


 * The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.


 * We meet this criteria hook line and sinker and have met it for over a decade. There is no way that this criteria can be employed to delete this book, except by extreme prejudice of some wiki editors. If I was a feminist we would not even be having this discussion.72.234.207.192 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you persist in claiming that I removed the link to the Irish Times articles. Look in every single version that I edited, , , and the link to all three articles in The Irish Times is always there. I merely removed the excessive quotation of non-free text and the copyvio. Voceditenore (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * How could it not be you? SOMEBODY removed the John Waters text and link entirely and that change, as shown in this link: ....... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Men_Know_that_Women_Don%27t&diff=388768204&oldid=388765475........ was recorded in a Voceditenore edit. So, ignorant as I am, what else would I conclude? I opened Lew’s original page after you had been there and all mentions of Irish Times, John Waters, and the link to the Irish Times were deleted. I MYSELF had to put those back in, which is WHY they are there NOW! I linked the NEW footnote to a single page/article  at the Irish Times rather than the previous linked Irish Times search page that listed all THREE of the mentions of Rich Zubaty and What Men Know That Women Don’t.  Frankly I am amazed you continue to claim you didn’t erase that stuff when the evidence is recorded in that link. Am I failing to understand something? I don’t think so. Your begrudging attempts to find cites only when your nose is pointed right at them displays an utter lack of objectivity or willingness to help. You have the search tools to find hundreds of mentions of me and my books over the past 17 years, and you won’t do it. That is not kosher. 72.234.207.192 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Voceditenore is correct, the text of the review was removed, but the link was not. Just click on that link you posted and scroll to the bottom, you'll see the Irish Times link in the references section. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is supposed to sound right to me? Voceditenore removes the entire text of the main cite synopses about my book. Then she calls it "verification failed", when indeed, the original link takes the viewer to THREE different links mentioning my book in Irish Times. She has the tools to get into those pages and see which one of them refers directly to those John Waters quotes. Does she do that? Does she try to solve the problem? Does she leave us an advisement to solve the problem? No. She wipes out the whole thing. She leaves the footnote dangling under an innocuous opening sentence. That is NOT ethical editing and you cannot convince me your rules prescribe it. This was an unsubtle attempt to sabotage Lew's page from the get go by removing the main notable reference authority. The Irish Times, founded in 1895.


 * I will say this again. We are willing to work with you to meet your requirements. But we are not willing to sit back and assume everything is going along well and objectively when the main person handling this delete page is the one who deleted my personal page six months ago. This is called the “theory of unclean hands” in the law. Someone else has to hop in here and trying solving things. Or else this is just all a tedious joke.72.234.207.192 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, you really need to lay off Voceditenore. She did not nominate this article for deletion, and even if you think she's missed some media references to the book, you have to admit she's put in a lot of effort here to compile a list of media references that other editors can use to gauge the book's notability. It's pretty commendable for a (volunteer) editor to put so much effort into that sort of research and documentation, especially for a book whose author is repeatedly bashing her. In the end, the decision does not rest with her, it rests with the community as a whole who will look at what she's said, what you've said, what Eagles 24/7 has said, and everyone else, and make the determination whether it fits our notability guidelines. As a few folks have pointed out, assuming good faith is a really important part of our process here, and you really need to start assuming good faith about the people with whom you disagree.


 * That said, if the article is deleted, it's not the "death penalty" for it. It can be moved into a user space if you like so that if and when additional reliable sources can found, they can be added to the article and it can be restored to the main space. I'll be happy to walk you through this process if the need arises. There's absolutely no rule here that says that if it's deleted, it's gone forever. The deletion simply means that it's not ready, in terms of notability, for the main space. As you continue getting coverage in the press for it, the notability will increase, to the point where we'll be able to have enough third-party sources discussing your book to be able to support an article about it based on what they say about it. Time is on your side here. 28bytes (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That's the nicest thing anyone has said so far. No, nobody told us when my personal page was deleted that it could be moved to a "user space" and perhaps restored later. No one besides you has offered to work with us on the sources and the presentation of the sources. The fact is that thousands of men and hundreds of women have benefited from this book. Their testimonies can be found on my podcast/blog http://www.therudeguy.com . And on my Youtube page of the SAME NAME as the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLPDBGZiT54  Just shy of 20,000 people have watched the video in the past 6 months and hundreds have left comments. I guess you  don’t care, but it matters. That’s what millions of people care about. Men’s issues. Not the book, not the video, not the podcast, not the TV and radio appearances. Not me! The issue. So based upon your promise to help I will back off of Voceeditore. But I won’t let my guard down. I think there are people eavesdropping on this site who could plop my book names into super search engines and come up with hundreds of mentions of both titles. But they don’t do it. Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You write, "No, nobody told us when my personal page was deleted that it could be moved to a 'user space' and perhaps restored later." Actually, I did explain exactly that to you, here. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I was talking about userfying the article, not setting up a "user page" as such. 28bytes (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been explained to you before. We do not have any "super search engines" at our disposal just because we are editors at Wikipedia. We just use Google.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your agreement to ease up on the editors here. 28bytes (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) 72.234.207.192. I put the failed verification tag on the Harvard Crimson citation not on the Irish Times citatiion. This was because the article, as you had written it, claimed that according to the Harvard Crimson you were quoting directly from your book. However, the Harvard Crimson article did not say that you were quoting from your book. It merely recorded the things you said at the rally. Once again, I shortened the quoted text from The Irish Times because I considered it in excess of the levels permitted by the "fair use". As it is, the article is still nothing but quotes. I did not nominate this article for deletion, nor did I nominate Rich Zubaty for deletion. Nor can I personally delete any article. I am not an administrator. Only administrators can delete articles after an AfD and they do that based on the results of the discussion, not on their personal whim. Really, 28bytes's advice to you is very good. If the decision here is to delete (and it won't be my decision, but a consensus of the participants as judged by the closing administrator), the article can be transferred to a Lew Loot's user page where you can both work on it in draft form, taking your time to bring it up to scratch, incorporating as many of the sources I have provided, and writing it in a neutral point of view, without excessive quotation or copy-pasting from copyright web sites, and without cherry-picking only positive quotes and sources. Voceditenore (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

RESET BUTTON Honest to god, I don’t want to argue with Voceditenore any more, but simply by LOOKING at this link  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Men_Know_that_Women_Don%27t&diff=388768204&oldid=388765475   one can see that the ENTIRE John Waters Irish Times quote was removed. Not just part of it. At the time it looked like outright sabotage. To me it still does. Furthermore, the idea that I picked positive quotes is silly. I selected the most accurate and controversial quotes I found quoted by reviewers. And this whole notion of putting this away in the woodshed for it to cool off for awhile is just what I imagine it is. A polite charming manipulation to get the page deleted. I have not yet seen anybody do anything more than OFFER to help once it is deleted. I think I’d rather go fight in Afghanistan than keeping fighting with you people. I won’t know who the enemy is over there either..... But let me get a grip on myself....and let’s put it down to a bit of fumbling in the dark and move on.

Regarding 28bytes comments about search engines. Some of you have paid access to newspaper archives and such. I know for a fact that papers like the Chicago Southtown Economist did stories about the book in the mid 1990s. Also the South Chicagoland Star newspapers at about the same time. Also an Ottawa paper. But I can't find 'em. Most of my exposure was on radio in the 90s and it is my belief that some of you have privileged access to radio archives which would at least confirm the vast number of shows I was on. And probably have transcripts from some of them.

However, I did find this. A favorable mention of my BBC2 Counterblast TV show on Jan 24, 2000 hosted on some British web site. These are all quotes from my book. How do I know? I wrote them! You can read ‘em too. Anytime you want I’ll send you an ebook. This isn’t about attribution in main stream media. It’s about a damn book! Voltaire got thrown in jail for self-publishing his works.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/1cset0.htm Counterblast BBC2 7.30pm 24jan00

American anti-feminist author Rich Zubaty joins George (McAulay ) to talk about the sort of privileges women enjoy today as they head into positions of power in society.

"Men have to register for military service in the States, women do not. I don't know how women can become congressmen and senators and CEOs of huge corporations and they're never required to somehow protect or defend the form of government that allows them these high privileges," Rich explains. "If we created a special class of men who were born into a privilege whereby they never had to fight in war, they were never expected to do hard physical labour, we would consider these men aristocrats and throwbacks to a couple of centuries ago. But the fact that women can be born into a class where they never have to fight in a war, never are expected to do physical labour is a type of aristocracy."

Rich believes female chauvinism is based entirely on the belief that men are the oppressors of women. He says this is not true today nor has it ever been the case despite the fact that the entire feminist agenda is built upon the notion. "Men have always been the ones to fight the wars, to mine the minerals, to drill the oil, to bring comfort and security into the lives of women. Nineteen out of twenty people who die on the job are men. If nineteen out of twenty people who died on the job were women we'd have a federal investigation into this tragedy."

I'm gonna get back to stopping war and punishing corrupt banks for awhile. Somehow that's easier than this.72.234.207.192 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Voceditenore's remarks look a case of, think of a number and there's always a bigger one. She's found a number of references, but these were not acceptable because, evidently, they weren't BIG references. Thresholds. Can always be moved. Numbers. There are always bigger ones. I think the fight that some people are willing to put up -- on their own time -- just to keep a book OFF is giving it future notability. Lew Loot (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment 72.234.207.192 and Lew Loot for the last time, I removed the excessive amounts of non-free material from the Irish Times per these guidelines, not to "sabotage" your article. I put the failed verification tag on the links you gave because they did not verify that your book "examines masculinity in crisis in the western world". You are free to extract the gist of the Irish Times articles (and others) in your own words with only very brief quoted phrases and add it to the article. The current article, now that you have restored much of the Irish Times text is 242 words of which 213 are quotes, i.e. 88%, and almost all from Zubaty's book. As Eagles247 pointed out to you, the number of radio shows you went on to promote your book, does not in itself make it notable, although if properly documented, it could provide useful material concerning the history of the book and its publication, once notability is established.  The references I provided are the best and most extensive I could find. For some discussants, they might tip the balance in favour of a "keep". At least they have something to go on. I'm personally not convinced that they are enough, but that's not to say that others in this discussion (who are not directly involved in promoting Mr. Zubaty and his book) would agree with me. If you don't want to use them to expand the article, then don't.  You've both been pointed multiple times to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning notability, reliable sources, verifiability, conflict of interest, neutral point of view, copyright, fair use, deletion policy, etc. etc.. If you don't want to take the time to read them, or simply reject them, as you are doing here, there's not much I, or any other editor can do about it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are all passing mentions. Because this article by a non-notable author fails Verifiability, Notability, and Notability (books), it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - First, "What Men Know that Women Don't" is nada. Second, if the article is like the book (which is a good bet) it's probably the rant of one guy who doesn't feel he should have to pay child support just because he's the sperm father. Third, and most importantly, it's fairly obvious that the author wants to use wikipedia to help establish artificial notability. Somewhere out there, I'm hearing the cry of Hormel's flagship product. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ↑ Agreed with everything he said. I could have not said it better. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ↑ Also agreed, lets hope Mr zubaty or the author doesn't try to climb the Reichstag dressed as spiderman--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If he does, and someone gets a snapshot of it, that could be used in the article. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Cunard here plus copyvio claimed by the nominee, the cover uses GNU licence we can't use that for book covers can we?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal What I suggest is that we steer a middle course on this. We move the article to the User Area (that would be my user area), and develop it there. We then seek regular guidance to take it to the standard required for it to go live. For example, it was my own idea to use the GNU License for the book cover. Not being entirely familiar with copyright regulations, this seemed the best choice at the time. Both myself and Mr. Zubaty will be regularly on the lookout for cites in the media that we can link to give the article the completeness it needs for publication. How does this sound? Lew Loot (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea. If the result of this AfD is "delete", an administrator will remove it from the main article space. At that point, you can go here and request that it be "userfied," which means it will be moved to User:Lew Loot/What Men Know that Women Don't, where you can work on it and add new sources as they become available. Incidentally, you can also request that the Rich Zubaty article be userfied using the same process. It may end up that that article is the more notable of the two depending how the additional sources shake out. 28bytes (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just now userfied it. Thanks for the advice. Lew Loot (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One suggestion I'd make, is that once you think the article might be ready to move back onto Wikipedia, you seek, and most importantly, take the advice of experienced editors on your final draft. If they give you the thumbs up, then take the draft through the Deletion review process for approval, instead of simply adding it back. If it is directly added, nominated for deletion (i.e. this current process) and deleted a second time, it becomes almost impossible to get it back on Wikipedia a third time. The reason I emphasised the necessity of actually taking the advice of the experienced, outside editors you've asked is that if there is even a hint of promotional language, or a failure to adhere to a neutral point of view in the article, it won't get through the deletion review process. If you are an advocate of the book, or have a personal or professional connection with its author, it is very hard (almost impossible) to be objective about how your writing will be perceived by others. WP:COI has very useful advice on editing under these circumstances. A good person to ask for advice or to look over your draft is User:DGG. Another resource is the Article Rescue Squadron. And just a reminder, don't paste copyright text into the draft, even to use as notes. It's not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, even user pages. Keep the material in a separate file on your own computer. I've left you some links on your talk page to more guidance on copyright issues at Wikipedia as well as a link on how to correctly upload copyright images donated by a third party. It requires permission from the copyright owner in writing, which has to be sent to Wikipedia before the image is uploaded. It's a bit of a complicated process, but if not followed will inevitably result in the image's deletion. It isn't enough to simply state on the file page that you have the owner's permission.  Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC) further material added by Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I shall be working on it in the days and weeks ahead. Lew Loot (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This "middle ground" sounds like the Black Knight telling Arthur, "All right, we'll call it a draw." Technically, is there any reason the user can't "userfy" it right now, and request speedy deletion of the actual article? The user should also put the "NOINDEX" parameter on the userfied version so Google won't find it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This would only work if the article does not contain copyrighted material as of this moment; otherwise, the userfication will fail if the user subpage violates copyright. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  09:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not really possible to use db-author on an article which has more than one contributor, and secondly userfying is normally done by an admin to preserve the edit history. It shouldn't just be cut and pasted elsewhere. That's why the AfD template says that the article must not be blanked during the AfD. Although, there's no reason why an admin couldn't bring this debate to an early close if there seems to be clear consensus for deletion and it's been requested by the article's creator as well. The copyvio was removed with this edit and has not been restored. Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks for the explanation. In short, it's not a copy-and-paste, it's a move. And presumably if it ever achieves something resembling viable status, it could be moved back, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. There's a recent example here following this debate at Deletion Review. Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2010 (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.