Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride

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. This is rather a tough call. No strong consensus has developed, but I wouldn't be able to justify relisting. The discussion is currently leaning towards keep/merge, and as "no consensus" defaults to keep, I think this is the appropriate way to close this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Pamphlet with unclear notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NPOV disclosure: In contesting this prod, the creator implied that the reason I prodded this had everything to do with my Christian faith. Rest assured that it is not the case. What I see here is a lack of a notability assertion and a lack of reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You ae biased dot com. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the personal attack which I am unwilling to attempt to answer, the sources you provided do attest the existence of this pamphlet, however they do not establish much more than that. Can you remedy the situation? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just watch me citing ;) --SofieElisBexter (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the possibility of perceived POV-pushing, I will refrain from any further comment in this AfD, even where warranted. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• History of sexuality is a wiki topic, and the text of The Instructions is a resource (There are a number of sources that can be collected across a wide variety of times and cultures, including the following: 2.Religious and philosophical texts recommending, condemning or debating the topic) often citted - make a google book search. Besides the issue is lacking history of meddieval, renaissance christian world and later, and talks only about ancient times and then imediately sexual revolution. Noone would make a Sexual revolution on Ancient time sexual practises, this is very much clear. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references cited in the article do not address the notability of the topic which seems to be a hoax regarding a supposedly Victorian text. The article has style issues that could be addressed, such as wildly veering off topic without discernible direction or cause, but bottom line is notability has not been demonstrated through significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Please notify me on my user talk page if such coverage is found and clearly without doubt meets WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No hoax - copy rights of University of Washington shows it. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @193  ·  03:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to have some discussion in some books; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other languages:

1. Russian: Инструкция для молодой невесты 1894
2. Bulgarian: Инструкции и съвети за млади булки
3. Croatian: Seksualni vodič za djevojke iz 1894

I believe there are more translations. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both this and Lie back and think of England to Sexual revolution. I agree that there's some coverage, but I also agree that it fails to meet WP:N. Per WP:PRESERVE we should retain some mention of the subject in Wikipedia, but there simply isn't enough sourceable material there for someone to be able to write a separate article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot merge articles like Lie back and the Intstructions with something serious. They may be of historical origin but they have a popular humouristic meaning, this is unserious! Besides Like back is a fraze while the Instructions are an explainatory text. Not to mention that the Lie back became popular long before the Revolution and the Instructions long after? What is this? DO you think before writing and voting? --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't think, SofieElisBexter. And I certainly don't agree that "this is serious and that isn't" is a good reason for keeping a non-notable article as a separate entity.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you belive an article about Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan with google is more important? And plenty more in Wiki. I never heard this one being tranlsated or popular anywhere in the world. But if I look closer I will find many translations of the Instructions, so far I have 3, not looked up for other Slavic and non slvic languages. I don't really understand what exactly is the problem you have, men, with this article. Yes, it is important, but no, you dont want it in Wikipedia. Why? Because you dont like truth. And sertainly you prefer to use this text as a harrasment hoax (Krull case) using and abusing the less educatedness and stupidity of women. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do want this subject to be covered in Wikipedia, and I was fairly clear about that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I woudl appreciate that everyone voting first read the two articles, at least ;) --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article seems to be more than adequately well referenced. The text seems to have been noticed enough to not only be an Internet meme, but was actually seriously discussed in a textbook in a discussion of attitudes towards human sexuality. These texts are too extensive to merge anywhere without either loss of information or giving them undue weight in any target article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : This sounds like another historical "obscure but notable" item. These come up on a number of subjects and I've been trying to refine a notion of "notable" that doesn't rule out obscure. An encyclopedia is not supposed to promote a topic but it has to be more than a collection of popular trivia (IMO). If the sources check and create enough observations about the work, it seems an entry would be useful to many readers. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : However, this article could benefit from skilled attention to grammar and style. Its first sentence needs improvement, "copy right" is correctly spelled as a compound word, "copyright," "exampling" should probably be "exemplifying," but the sentence containing it would still be awkward with correct grammar. That is an incomplete list of possible improvements. More attention to grammar, spelling, and style would be great. Newportm (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (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.