Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female sex tourism

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. I find the strongest argument at the moment is to leave it as it is. I will leave it up to those working on Sex Tourism as to whether they want to move it to Male Sex Tourism, though this does seem like a very good idea. Tyrenius 23:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female sex tourism

In light of the number of sources which have been added, I am voting Keep on this. I'm not sure whether merging this with the main sex tourism article or having two separate articles would be optimal, I'm fine with either option. I'm not entirely sure this should be deleted, but I'm concerned enough on this to nominate it. The article appears to have only one source, a book where the author matches the name of the person who wrote this article. In addition, the publisher which amazon.com lists for this book has only published two books... both by this same author. I'm thinking that a self-published book is not a reliable source, and this article may be just the author's way of advertising her book Xyzzyplugh 11:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- There's lack of source. If the person is the same name of the person who wrote the book. Then they should let someone elese write the article. It would be almost the same as orginal research.--Scott3 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. So lets make a bonfire -- GWO
• Delete per nom. On the other hand there may be a couple of lines worth saving for Sex tourism. After all, female sex tourism does happen! --Richhoncho 12:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Nuttah68 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom unless better sources are provided abakharev 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC). Well, beter sources are provided. Keep. abakharev 15:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete inadequately sourced, apparent WP:OR, likely WP:VSCA. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Revise, but provide guidance please? Hi everyone, original author here. I read 800 books, articles, memoirs in three languages in my study of female sex tourism, which was reviewed by 25 scholars, including Erik Cohen, Suzanne LaFont, Scott South, Eugenia Wickens, Mick Bloor, Ron de Graaf, and Donald Symons, all leading experts on female mating behavior. In other words, the scholarship and editing of this book is on par, or surpasses, books published by larger houses, and tackles a niche of no interest to large publishers.

Most of the seminal works, such as "For Love and Money: Romance Tourism in Jamaica," by Pruitt and LaFont, are in scholarly journals such as Annals of Tourism Research that cannot be linked to directly, often not even indirectly. They can be cited w/o URL links I suppose? Another major work, April Gorry's "Leaving Home for Romance: Tourist Women's Adventures Abroad," is a doctoral dissertation that can only be purchased via UMI or viewed at UC-Santa Barbara. The most important newspaper articles lie behind the wall at Lexis-Nexus. Some of the best and most riveting online discussions on Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree were removed in the passage of time. If you want to know details on Victorian female sex travelers from the United States and Britain, who visited Europe and India, that will require a month in the Library of Congress looking at books, some in the antiquarian section.

If anyone has ideas on how to proceed on this topic w/ a paucity of possible external links, let me know, I can revise it. If you want someone else to tackle the topic, that is fine too, the question is ... who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbelliveau (talk • contribs) --Jbelliveau 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep or Merge Notable and valid topic with multiple academic sources available on Google Scholar [1] and Google Books [2] [3]. Also has been a subject in mainstream news and entertainment as the article notes. Examples:[4][5][6](scroll down)[7][8] . However,I feel that the article should be merged as a section in Sex tourism rather than have its own article however, unless a reasonable argument can be made for a separate article. Bwithh 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• More work necessary The author has done some good work to keep this article going, and, on reflection, there is a different slant on male and female sex tourism. I'd like to see much more reference to facts rather than reference to fictional characters, which is merely trivia padding. I am changing my vote to keep on the grounds it is a important subject and others will help. --Richhoncho 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your ideas -- I've worked hard to improve and broaden the content. Bwitthh also thanks for the New York Times cite for "Libidos of a Certain Age" -- didn't know it was published yet -- I was interviewed by the reporter Wednesday, and her questions were basic yet so thought-provoking I came here to Wikipedia to put together starter information. It would be tricky to merge with the larger sex tourism article because the academic citations are so specific to female sex tourism but that is for the group to decide. Will check back for other's guidance later on! --Jbelliveau 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Quick reply to some of the points raised earlier by Jbelliveau. First, welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for creating this article, and we hope that you will join in contributing and editing to other articles too. Freely available external web links are ideal references, but references from newspaper databases, thesis databases, published works, and library archives are also generally acceptable (even if not on open search engines like google scholar etc.) as many Wikipedians have access to such databases and can cross-check and confirm such references - this is not quite a routine part of the verification process, but does happen often. Also, all wikipedia articles are subject to editing by multiple authors of varying degrees of expertise - very often, no special expertise is necessary if an editor is simply creating content from verified external sources. On the subject of academic citations, these can be turned into small font footnotes. There may be cause for a separate subarticle if a main article's main body of text is too long, but this is not the case for references. But are there good reasons besides layout why there should be separate articles? Bwithh 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Great question. So much of female sex travel requires at least a semblance of wooing and affection that some observers (Pruitt, Lafont) dub what is going on "romance tourism" instead. So there is a raging debate on the extent to which women's love journeys parallel male sex tourism. Also, making female sex tourism -- a very poorly understood activity -- a subset of the Sex tourism entry, would sort of bury the new information and interest in casual travel sex by women under some boilerplate on prostitution in Amsterdam and Nevada (? would think Nevada is not relevant to sex tourism). I do keep coming back to the question of design as well -- (being a student of Edward Tufte and how to present information) -- the Sex tourism entry does not have information on the history, reasons and depictions of male sex tourism. The female sex tourism article does have this information at this point. It's hard to envision a cohesive article that spans Nevada brothels and prosecution for pedophilia and then jumps into a longer, more detailed, with different subheads, discussion of female sex tourism. A proper article merging the two might have to be called the Globalization and Commodification of Sex and started from scratch and really address men, women, traveling for sex and a worldwide Affection Deficit Disorder. --Jbelliveau 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it is a valid social activity. Page Up 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. What I read doesn't seem that bad; but the sex tourism article is not so huge that two articles seem needful. If this be kept separately, suggest that we move sex tourism to male sex tourism, and make the existing article a disambiguation. Smerdis of Tlön 19:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move sex tourism to male sex tourism -- I like this idea. --JBelliveau 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep And move sex tourism to Male Sex Tourism -- the two are obviously very different. Hayford Peirce 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think there's a significant difference between male and female sex tourism. Destinations is a factor, even though I've seen an article detailing female sex tourism in Thailand (specifically British women; Taiwanese and Japanese women have been documented already) and I'd imagine male sex tourism would go to places other than SE Asia (which is probably more correct) and Eastern Europe. In addition, the part stating masculinity and feminity is not only stereotypical but Euro/Americentric. --ColourBurst 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of popular destinations, there's considerable overlap between female and male sex tourism, isn't there? Bwithh 12:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Some overlaps in Thailand (though to simplify, men go to Bangkok / Pattaya, women to Phuket / Pattaya), the Dominican Republic and Cuba. Other sites have little overlap, i.e., the Philippines and Vietnam cater to men only; Greece, Barbados, the Gambia cater strongly to women. There are some places mainly catering to gay men and straight women, such as Morocco and formerly Haiti. --JBelliveau 12:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think I basically agree with having separate articles. I recommend moving the male-specific content of Sex tourism to Male sex tourism, and add a prominent disambiguation (not just in "see also") Sex tourism to link to Male and Female articles. Bwithh 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good -- here's a noob question -- who should actually proceed with following this recommendation? And are there steps needing to be taken to place the Female sex tourism entry in good standing rather than as "recommended for deletion" ? --JBelliveau 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Response to JBelliveau. It will be up to an administrator to decide whether this article should stay, 5 days after nomination. I don't see any reason now why it shouldn't stay, given the voting, when that happens anybody can create a redirect. It may be better to make Sex tourism a disambiguation page to male, female and child (which is presently a redirect) sex tourism. There may be other related articles that should be listed as relevant to the general heading of sex tourism. --Richhoncho 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Response to JBelliveau Standard process is that the afd discussion stays up for 5 days and then an administrator (who should not have taken part in the debate) comes along and closes the debate, and takes whatever actions the admin thinks have been consensually decided by the debate. This is not a simple vote - the admin decides which side has the best arguments (taking wikipedia policy and precedents into account). Sometimes, the admin may decide that there is no consensus (in which case the article is kept and should not be renominated for deletion for 2 or 3 months). Occasionally, an admin may decide that the minority opinion in the debate has the better arguments, and make a decision that goes against the majority. People who think the admin closed the debate unfairly, may take the case to other admins at Deletion Review, where it's possible an article will be undeleted or relisted for discussion. An article can get a consensus of "speedy keep" or "speedy delete" votes which may be acted on by an admin, meaning that an article nomination lasts much less than 5 days. The admin may also decide to speedily keep or delete an article if it is clear that an article was incorrectly nominated or clearly breaks core Wikipedia policies (e.g. copyright violation). An admin may also decide to speedy keep if the original nominator withdraws the nomination, or if the article creator (but only if they have created almost all the article content, and there are no suspicions of ulterior motives) asks for the article's deletion. In this case, the article may be speedily kept once an admin notices that the original nominator has changed their vote. When the article closes, note that the admins does not have to undertake all the specific changes/renaming/editing actions suggested by users that are outside the main calls for deletion/keeping/merging etc. - usually its the responsibility of the users to follow up on that Bwithh 15:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Many thanks for these patient explanations. --JBelliveau 11:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, are you sure this topic isn't of interest to large publishers...? I would have thought the opposite. Bwithh 15:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Large publishers are interested in: spinoffs of the Da Vinci Code, diet books, movie tie-ins and celebrity bios! Would that this were not the case! Small publishers are better able to pursue niche topics. Successful niche books are occasionally purchased in due time by big houses. --JBelliveau 11:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge sex tourism. Exists, but we don't need an article on female X for every X. --SJK 10:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Often when you merge male and female data / information, you end up with mud, especially with regards to sexual behavior. For example, if you say the average American has eight lifetime sexual partners, that is close to meaningless, if the men have 20 partners and the women, three. The "merged" information is almost disinformation that obscures a very important distinction between male and female sex behavior that is the real point of the data. Sex tourism may be a similar case, where combining the two is like mixing vivid colors of paint and ending up with brown. I am not saying the articles cannot be merged, but to do so will essentially require (a) expanding the material on male sex tourism to be comprehensive and structured in parallel with material on female sex tourism (b) pondering whether the material in the sex tourism article regarding Nevada brothels and pedophilia prosecutions is germane to the larger question of sex tourism as a response to economic and affection-deficit problems in the West and the developing world.--JBelliveau 11:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• But, I see no issue with having a female-specific section of the article. My point is this: if female X is sufficiently different from male X, that is a good reason to have a section in the article about X discussing gender differences concerning X, or even two separate sections (one male, one female) within the article about X. But you still haven't given a reason for having two completely separate articles. And the reality is, even when female X and male X differ, there is still some commonality, so having two or three articles is going to inevitably result in overlap. So I think its better just to have one. --SJK 10:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into sex tourism; this appears to be a [neologism] with less than 1000 Google hits; making clear sections on the different behaviors of the sexes, if well-documented, will make that one article stronger. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, echoing Xyzzyplugh's revised rationale. — Coelacan | talk 07:22, 19 July 2006 (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.