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, with no prejudice towards userfying. If anyone plans to userfy, please notify me. —Kurykh 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about masturbation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs about masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I closed the DRV for this article as relist. My opinion is weak delete, considering that this is a trivia list and per precedent. Sr13 07:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1[edit]

The Afd appears to have undergone five days on 9th July when it was renamed from 3rd nomination to 4th nomination [see diif] by Zenohockey who didn't amend the Afd day log to take note of the change.
My questions are :-

Mike33 - t@lk 07:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd is now the 7th nomination Mike33 - t@lk 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, this is the 5th nomination. The two italicized links are redirects and do not actually contain debates. --Coredesat 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks text amended Mike33 - t@lk 08:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions."
That is no way indicative that this would be included in such a definition. We have two clear factors in the title of the list - "Masturbation" and "songs" - join those together and we have the begining of a definative list. I agree remove all the nonsense WP:OR, slim the list to clearly recognised references and leave it open so that an article can be written about the place of masturbation in music. Apparantly, John Donne was writing about it too. Mike33 - t@lk 12:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Afd isn't a vote, it is based on developing a consensus, five days of debate. There are lots of reasons why Afds are raised again and again, in the same way that articles are dropped from WP:GA and WP:FA, it certainly isnot a reason to oppose deletion. Mike33 - t@lk 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response There is no more of a case for deletion here than in any other unsuccessful Afd. You seen to have a lot to say on the topic and appear to have a keen interest in having it removed. You do not appear to be happy with just giving your opinion and be done with it, you have to comment on everyones reponses, and from this I can only assume you have something other than an objective opinion on this and your attempts to remove are in bad faith. Perhaps you were caught at it while you were younger? Irishjp 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irishjp, please refrain from making personal attacks; it is counter-productive. D4g0thur 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list has not got a single reference to back this statement up. To say that masturbation was "deliberately intended by their lyricists" is purely speculative/interprative without supportive evidence. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because the list is not currently referenced properly, doesn't mean that it can't be or won't be referenced properly. If this survives, I suggest we remove all entries and then slowly add any that can be sourced like "Turning Japanese" [3] or "I Touch Myself" [4]. D4g0thur 03:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't like lists, more often than not they are a hinderence to the information I want to find. With google we can wikisearch without the b*llsh*t. There is no policy about WP:LC, and this doesn't fit into it even. Idealism says that if the subject exists in wikipedia (not just to fill in red links) then the subject exists as a whole. Mike33 - t@lk 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to remove an article, you need to win one AfD out of 5--or however many it may take to win one. To keep it, you need 5 out of 5. The provision for repeated AfD biases WP process towards deletion. The equivalent of asking the other parent is asking repeatedly until the parent gives in rather than maintain the originaly correct position.DGG (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2[edit]

Nadamucho's similar article. Even Digg has got in on the act, discussing it here. It seems that there are sources out there, whether they meet reliable sourcing criteria is another matter. However, the above links are verifiable, so it could be seen as encyclopedic. In the 3rd AFD, Aecis stated it should be kept but referenced, and here I have done just that - I have sourced information, and referenced it. If you wish to discuss the sources go to the talk page, that might not be a bad idea. Either way, this does seem to be the source of controversy here on Wikipedia, and it seems this may become another No consensus AfD. Please read my arguments and consider them. I rest my case. Apologies for the length of this. Thanks, --SunStar Net talk 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Bulldog123 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for my attempt to rectify this problem. If the only problem with the article is a lack of references and WP:OR then it can be solved - deletion is only for article's whose subject is inherently unecyclopaedic. D4g0thur 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the assertion "deletion is only for article's whose subject is inherently unecyclopaedic" is incorrect. Secondly, I still maintain that this article is an irrelevant classification. This is only compounded (and reinforced) by the fact that there are no real sources. Yes, you've listed a few, but they're hardly reliable. For instance, Cracked is a magazine devoted to satire. Then there's a tripod homepage. --Eyrian 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of good sourcing is not a reason for deletion, as specified here Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing. It's not as if it's impossible for many/most of these songs to be referenced using RS. Your argument that it's an irrelevant classification is stronger, but subjective. If you were writing an essay on sex in popular culture, it would certainly be relevant, useful and (when improved) encyclopedic. --Dweller 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sourcing most certainly can be a reason for deletion, depending on whether the content can be verified "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". That is most certainly true for the vast majority of the content in this article. It very well justifies deletion. If desired, it could be recreated, sourced to reliable works from the beginning. From what I've seen, that's not very likely. Further, I doubt that a list of unverified/unverifiable assertions that random songs might contain a reference to masturbation would be particularly useful for anything. Even if Wikipedia's purpose were to be useful. --Eyrian 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too would refute the argument that a lack of good sourcing is not a reason for deletion. As the link pointed out states, if an article can be improved through editing as opposed to deletion it should be - but that's a big if. The fact that this article has undergone multiple AfD's over a period of two years and still does not have any reliable sourcing, if anything, bolsters the argument about lack of sources. I fail to see how anyone can argue "this list can be sourced" when two years and several discussions of opportunity have resulted in a big zero in terms of sources. In any case WP:V tells us the burden of proof when it comes to sources is on those who add the material, not those who challenge it - those who argue this has sources have had ample time to refute the challenge and have not done so. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that other editors are showing that the article can be sourced. I really hope that the concerted efforts to have this deleted aren't prompted by prurience. --Dweller 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they have not. The revised article that I saw had about 5 entries, mostly unreliably sourced. If 99% of the content is unverifiable, the article should be deleted, and gradually rebuilt. The lifetime of this cruft-driven monstrosity should be at an end. --Eyrian 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eyrian, you said "The lifetime of this cruft-driven monstrosity should be at an end." It sounds to me like you are on a personal crusade or vendetta against this article. That aside, the sources in that article are not unreliable just because you disagree with them. D4g0thur 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling them unreliable because I disagree with them; I'm claiming they're unreliable because they're unreliable. Do you honestly see no problems with using a satire magazine as a source? Regarding a personal crusade, I came upon this article on this AfD, and I think it should be deleted because of its obvious faults. --Eyrian 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the sources used to be prefectly acceptable. Just because a magazine publishes satire does not prevent it from publishing fact as well. D4g0thur 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Satire magazines are the pioneers of phony articles. Yes, they could conceivably publish something that's true, but they cannot be considered reliable. Stores are routinely made as a meta-joke, or to satirize the notion of news. It simply cannot be considered a factual source. --Eyrian 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A satirical magazine can be considered a reliable source. Further, you have not raised any concerns with any of the other sources. D4g0thur 02:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still maintain that it's a largely irrelevant classification. What makes a song "about" something, and not something else, is highly subjective. Is mentioning it enough? Half the verses? It's just not encyclopedic. --Eyrian 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Spend 5 months *improving* (?) this list, it still doesn't change the fact that it isn't a notable list per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. It is the inverse of the argument "Keep it because it is so well sourced!" Bulldog123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will continue to maintain it on a subpage of my userpage as I beleive it has encyclopaedic value but needs tender love and care. Any editor who wants to help is more than welcome. If and when I/we get it to a stage where it seems "good enough", I/we will put it back in the article space - this might take a while though. D4g0thur 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid claim of verifiability. "The thermoelectric effect doesn't need sources because anyone can go look at a wire and see that it works for themselves." Articles should not be constructed completely from primary sources. --Eyrian 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then how would you verify such a thing? If the list says "this song contains the lyrics: "I been caught wankin'" and thus it is about masturbation", then how could that possibly be untrue? SalaSkan 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it could be a metaphor. They occasionally pop up in art. --Eyrian 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, rereading that you don't really think it adequately answers User:Salaskan's question do you? Please don't get worked up over this too much - after all, its only Wikipedia, its not real life. D4g0thur 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wouldn't it? Art frequently contains things that mean something else. Just because the singer says a word, doesn't mean they're referring to the actual act of masturbation. Further, please note that everything that I think and do is part of my real life. --Eyrian 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it *could* theoretically be a metaphor doesn't make this list unverifiable, in my opinion. If a certain song contains the line "I been caught wankin'" we can safely assume that it is about masturbation. That is no reason to delete the list. SalaSkan 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your safe assumption is blatant OR, and quite unacceptable. Please read WP:OR to understand why. --Eyrian 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming something that is obviously true is not OR. Saying that it is OR is blatant WikiLawyering. D4g0thur 02:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OR is when an editor claims that something is intended one way without a source, in a nut shell. Claiming a lyric, despite obvious intentions to what it means, when you have no reliable sources as to what the correct meaning is, is OR. Don't wikilawyer when you obviously can't. — Moe ε 03:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, thus, this is not OR. You have proved my point for me. D4g0thur 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it is OR, it lacks reliable sources. No sources = Original research, period. This page also has copyrighted lyrics on it. Unless you can actually provide a policy that says you can commit copyright infrigement.. — Moe ε 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright warrior shall we go on a patrol removing every quotation? or are song lyrics a special kind of copyright? Do you have any NEW POLICY which says that lyrics and book quotations are different? wow I'll have a real party deleting when I see this policy Mike33 - t@lk 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bulldog123 is the arbitrator of WP:NOT. Content is policy - style is guideline. How can Policy ever refer to Guideline? I have never been refered to as many WP pages in the last two days. Essays and guidelines but very rarely policy. Mike33 - t@lk 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have absolutely no clue what you just said. Bulldog123 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to User:Moe Epsilon, I was actually talking about the revised version but I can see how that was not clear, sorry for the confusion. D4g0thur 01:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not go tossing around accusations of censorship. I have no problem with Wikipedia featuring anything based on offensiveness of content. Please don't conflate people's distaste for what is being perceived as an unreferenced treatment of an unencyclopedic organization with wanting to purify Wikipedia of naughty ideas. Ignoring all rules over the backs of dozens of delete votes seems to be to be a very bad idea. --Eyrian 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last Afd was delogged by accident and was stuck in no consensus. I tried to get the nominator to relist it without success and took it to AN/I, relisted it and it was closed twice as a delete. it went through DR and was reopened as a proceedural error. I think there is now some consensus and will get whacked off. Mike33 - t@lk 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it will take a few more days to reach climax of this discussion, it looks like it will end with "The result was d*****." I'd spell out the d-word, but I don't want the fantasy to end prematurely for anyone Mandsford 22:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the above comments; this is most certainly not about censorship (at least for me and several others; I can't speak to people's motivations). --Eyrian 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3[edit]

  • This is the major problem (IMO) with the list, the problem that I'm trying to fix. D4g0thur 07:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason that it will "take a while" for me to fix the article is that I am quite busy at the moment and won't be doing any major editing for a little while. I'd like to say, I am not the creator of this article, but I feel it deserve a chance at being better. If, after my attempts to improve it, it still fails inclusion criteria, then I will not keep it stored in my userspace. Further, it is very common for Wikipedians to work on articles while keeping them in their userspace. D4g0thur 12:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the best of my knowledge, we're allowed to remake deleted content, and to userfy deleted content for improval or transference purposes. Userpages are for personal use, and content that is moved there from mainspace is effectively deleted from the encyclopedia as far as the readers are concerned - we can't, say, redirect deleted articles to userspace copies - so it definitely doesn't count as avoiding deletion. I see no problems with this. Further, WP:NOT#USER disallows using Wikipedia for hosting personal content or self-promotion, but this is neither, just an article that doesn't advertise D4g0thur and bears no overt connection to him. (Disclaimer: No prior dealings with the article, its starters/major editors, or D4g0thur.) --Kizor 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with all of your interpretations, but my reasoning is as follows:
  1. It is unreferenced, and probably 90%+ unreferencable (as argued by fchd above), therefore it cannot be fixed. It is permanently Original Reasearch.
  2. If it is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article, and cannot be fixed, then it is nothing more than personal content hosted on Wikipedia.
—gorgan_almighty 13:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—gorgan_almighty 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments of the list's triviality are pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT;
  • Suggesting deletion based on an article lacking sources is not backed up by WP:NOT, it is basically an argument of WP:RUBBISH;
  • WP:SYNTH is not relevant here in any way; and,
  • Songs primarily about a topic are not "loosely associated".
— D4g0thur 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are simply incorrect. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. That's right there in WP:FIVE. There's nothing to do with not liking it. Most of these songs are not primarily about masturbation, as the article makes quite clear. --Eyrian 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are ignoring the fact that an article should only be deleted if the subject is not worthy of an article. Claiming it is trivial is not the same as it actually being trivial; a subject which has had research put into it (see [31] and [32]) is not a trivial subject. Thus, arguments of "delete as trivia" or the like are simply an attempt to justify what is really a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. D4g0thur 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question isn't the subject the article title implies, it's the actual article subject. A referenced explanation of masturbation in popular music would be an excellent article, and would not be deleted. A list of bare-mention OR trivia, which is what this article is, should be. This laundry list of bare-mention references would have no real relevance in constructing the aforementioned good article.--Eyrian 15:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm happy enough with the deletion of the current article as long as we don't salt the earth as, although the current article is quite poor, its subject is definately worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. D4g0thur 15:51, 24 July 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.
More