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 speedy deleted. Extreme WP:OR at best and WP:HOAX at worse. No indication of prevailing usage in a manner deemed noteworty (WP:N). El_C 12:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Obscenity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find usage of "Extreme Obscenity" online, and there isn't much in this article that distinguishes "Extreme Obscenity" from regular, old "Obscenity". I think this article should be deleted or redirected to Obscenity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is effectively gibberish and pretty much misses CSD criteria on a technicality. — Ghost River 04:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a mishmash of WP:OR. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some kind of unfocused personal essay. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Thank you for your input. This is my first article on Wikipedia so bear with me and help me bring it up to standard instead of deleting. D97931478 (talk)

The article contains no original research. The article is not a dictionary definition. The article is not a legal document. D97931478 (talk)

In answer to your concerns. The article is not an essay and is not gibberish. The statements are facts supported with valid references universal to the English language. All statements combined present a focused encyclopaedic reference that informs without the requirement for an unhelpful definition, interpretation, or demographic point of view. All statements are true and fully supported with references. The article is not perfect and will hopefully improve in time and I believe the articles inclusion in Wikipedia is significant to the human race because it addresses issues of obscenity and pornography that are not dealt with on the individual pages. The article separates extreme pornography from obscenity, and also points out that obscenity is not necessarily extreme. D97931478 (talk)

Delete as very much someone's personal point of view: the references are all dictionary definitions (tertiary) or government sites describing law (primary) from which the creator has synthesised a point of view, casting it in complexified encyclopaedia-speak. What was needed was an overview of good secondary sources, reviewing how different societies define and handle obscenity. This is already available at Obscenity. Elemimele (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just a starting point for development but it is relevant where Obscenity is not and avoids unhelpful dictionary definitions. It is written from a neutral point of view relying on trusted sources and the dictionary references offer a informative historical perspective of how words developed and were used in the past. Good secondary sources are available on other pages and repetition is unnecessary but hopefully myself and other editors will expand the page and add genre specific, and societal information in the future specifically relevant to extreme obscenity, and not included elsewhere. D97931478 (talk)

I have taken your comments on board and added references from journals that talk specifically of extreme obscenity. D97931478 (talk)

Is anyone checking this? Result to "keep" was added by IP address 86.142.230.206 - here - is this the Final Decision? Only an Admin can do this right?? STC1 _talk 19:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, I've removed it. Mlb96 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Any user without a conflict of interest can remove maintenance tags” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal D97931478 (talk)

Per the plain text of the AfD notice itself - "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed". Also, the policy you cite has a very clear statement on when *not* to remove templates - "The issue has not been resolved." Which, contrary to the IP editor just blocked for removing the templates, is clearly the case here. PohranicniStraze (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personal opinions are not relevant to a deletion discussion. D97931478 (talk)

Delete - As honestly all it appears to be is a very tangential branch to Obscenity. The few points this article has, could very well be added to Obscenity. Nothing in the article in question warrants a separate wiki. STC1 _talk 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Research suggests the term is in separate use from Obscenity, on my computer anyway, if not globally. Your second point has already been answered above. D97931478 (talk)

All previous posts have been resolved without further complaint. D97931478 (talk)

Keep - Good article. Could possibly be merged with other pages but agree it is valid in its entirety and makes points not directly relevant to other pages.

Suggest removing deletion template as the original reason given for deletion is no longer valid and no other valid reason has been given for a deletion discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.129 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see why this needs to be a seperate article. The content can be easily merged with the main obscenity article. JellyMan9001 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need to stop voicing opinions and make valid arguments based on deletion criteria and content, and improve the article if necessary. Nothing so far has suggested the deletion discussion is anything but vandalism, and trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.129 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Accusations like that get us nowhere. Also, as I'm primarily a recent changes patroller, I'm not the most knowledgeable on AFD processes, but I don't think you can just close the discussion on your own before consensus has been achieved. JellyMan9001 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies no disrespect intended but it looks like no valid argument for a deletion discussion has been given and any user can in this situation remove maintenance templates. Looks like trolling and vandalism to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.129 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD tags are not like normal maintenance tags. You are not allowed to remove them until consensus has been reached and the discussion has been closed. This is not trolling or vandalism. Please assume good faith. JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for deletion was A3 no content. Content has clearly been added and worked on. Why not just close the discussion as it is clearly not original research either. No focused argument for this discussion to continue for 7 days has been given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.33.144 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a focused argument. From what I see, most people are arguing that this topic isn't notable enough to be a seperate article, and the content can be merged with the main article on obscenity. I understand it can sting when your article is nominated for deletion, but continuously attempting to prematurely close the discussion won't help. JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - clearly created for the "lulz" and efforts to close this discussion suggest the whole thing is someone's childish trolling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personal essay and not needed in my view. Any notable content can be placed in the existing Obscenity article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:OR based on primary sources, which reads pretty much like a personal essay. This is also an unlikely enough term that redirecting to obscenity seems inappropriate too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G1, A1 and A11. Unencylopedic personal essay written to push a POV, which makes authors attempts to accuse others of having personal opinions all the more ironic. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2021 (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.