Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadism and masochism in fiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. NB The deletion points can and should be addressed by proper editing of the article. Tyrenius (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadism and masochism in fiction[edit]
- Sadism and masochism in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Directory/trivia collection, with some entries and the lede fleshed out slightly with unsourced original research. Important works are already listed in BDSM#Culture_and_media, so this can be deleted outright. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, nomination reeks of WP:PROBLEM. This topic is certainly notable and potentially informative. Although it is unsourced OR, it is not simply a list, but rather gives rationales and explanations for entries, nor is it entirely popcruft, with relevant notable entries. With a rigorous sourcing, this would be a very worthy article. Skomorokh incite 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You say that the article is unsourced original research. Unsourced original research must be deleted, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:No original research policy, note. You have just made an argument for deletion, irrespective of the boldface word that you have prefixed it with. If you want to make an argument for keeping that holds water, cite some sources. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest interested editors have a look at the many sources available at [1] [2] for starters. Since the nominator's argument is now rebutted, can we expect it to be withdrawn? Hiding T 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a set of search engine results, not a source citation. To do research, one has to actually read the things that Google turns up. Most of those papers have nothing to do with this subject. Colonel Warden below actually points to a specific paper by name. That is a citation. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you re-read my comment if you want to start an argument. I won't defend myself against a point I didn't make. I'm well versed in citations, I include them in almost every article I edit. Maybe you need to refresh yourself as to our Wikipedia:Editing policy? Hiding T 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your pointing to the editing policy is a red herring to divert the discussion. Your statement of being well versed is belied by the fact that in response to a challenge to cite sources you didn't cite a source. You linked to a set of search engine results, claiming them to be sources when most of them (as I said) have nothing to do with this subject at all, and wholly ignoring the fact that Google doesn't present the same results to everyone. A hyperlink to a set of Google search results is not a citation. I've pointed you to Wikipedia:Citing sources once already. Please read it. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you re-read my comment if you want to start an argument. I won't defend myself against a point I didn't make. I'm well versed in citations, I include them in almost every article I edit. Maybe you need to refresh yourself as to our Wikipedia:Editing policy? Hiding T 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a set of search engine results, not a source citation. To do research, one has to actually read the things that Google turns up. Most of those papers have nothing to do with this subject. Colonel Warden below actually points to a specific paper by name. That is a citation. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest interested editors have a look at the many sources available at [1] [2] for starters. Since the nominator's argument is now rebutted, can we expect it to be withdrawn? Hiding T 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You say that the article is unsourced original research. Unsourced original research must be deleted, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:No original research policy, note. You have just made an argument for deletion, irrespective of the boldface word that you have prefixed it with. If you want to make an argument for keeping that holds water, cite some sources. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom and complete lack of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a good foundation for an article - just needs more text upon the framework of the examples which seem to be well chosen. Sourcing and notability is currently adequately addressed by the many blue links. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't addressed the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Where is the existing published analysis, outside of Wikipedia, that ties all of those subjects together under this banner? Cite some sources doing such analysis, and you will have properly rebutted the nominator's argument. As of now, you haven't, and neither does the article (which cites no sources at all). Uncle G (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed obvious that this subject would be well-covered by many sources. So let's start with Google Scholar search for Sadism and masochism in fiction. There's 2390 hits and just the first of them Literary Trauma: Sadism, Memory, and Sexual Violence in American Women's Fiction is enough to tell me that we needn't go further to decide this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly wouldn't object to a new, well-sourced article on this subject, if that is what you are proposing. Are you up to writing it? The subject is fairly notable, but the existing framework (so to speak) guarantees further unsourced appends, not a well-edited, well-sourced article. Nothing appended to this article in the past year has been deleted, so I don't see evidence of any editorial oversight of this article at this time. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed obvious that this subject would be well-covered by many sources. So let's start with Google Scholar search for Sadism and masochism in fiction. There's 2390 hits and just the first of them Literary Trauma: Sadism, Memory, and Sexual Violence in American Women's Fiction is enough to tell me that we needn't go further to decide this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't addressed the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Where is the existing published analysis, outside of Wikipedia, that ties all of those subjects together under this banner? Cite some sources doing such analysis, and you will have properly rebutted the nominator's argument. As of now, you haven't, and neither does the article (which cites no sources at all). Uncle G (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WP:WPTPC list of Articles facing deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This seems to be just another case of deleting "... in Popular Culture". Some of the nominated articles are good, and some are not, and its up to our consensus to decide which to keep. I feel the subject is important enough and has enough material to stand on its own. It's really more of a cross-reference than a WP:DIRECTORY issue; similar lists and categories are a useful part of Wikipedia. I don't understand why "Original Research" keeps being mentioned though. There isn't any inappropriate opinion in this article, and the works listed are pretty obvious examples. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's because it's one of our content policies, that applies to every article. And "X in Y" articles are magnets for original research, when editors add what they personally consider to be examples of X in Y, and start growing folk lists of X in Y constructed firsthand by Wikipedia editors, rather than examples of X in Y that have actually been documented as such by reliable sources, and writing a verifiable encyclopaedia article without original research about X in Y. "But it's obvious!" is not a defence against adding novel analysis to Wikipedia. To advance the position that W is an example of X in Y, a source must be given that analyses W in such terms. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd also like to point out that the terms "sadism" and "masochism" actually came _from_ fiction, from the works of De Sade and von Sacher-Masoch. That might make a strong argument for notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Themes and basic plots are notable aspects of fiction . This is a notable theme. The bulk f the examples range from notable to extremely notable. Most of them will have books or articles or reviews written about them, and using a little common sense, any book or article or review written about one of these will certainly discuss the theme. What more is needed? I don;'t see what's OR, except looking in a book and seeing what its about--fiction is an acceptable primary source for information about its plot & other contents. Perhaps the most absurd of all recent ipc nominations. The apparent reason for given is that some of the material is also covered in other articles. That holds for anything almost in wikipedia. For example, we have articles of books and also on authors. On Edison and electricity--and so on. Agree or disagree, I can account for many of the POVs concerning certain types of WP articles. I have never been able to understand the basis of the ipc one. I probably have insufficient lack of imagination. :) DGG (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per apparent consensus above and because it is referenced and concerns a notable topic. Scholarly references include: [3]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a notable topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.