Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

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. John254 00:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article essentially fails every relevant policy in the book. First off, we have WP:NOT - in this case, the article is being used as an indiscriminate list of information ("slogans"?). As far as WP:RS go - there is only one non self-published reference. On the talk page, the fact that reliable sources exist was brought up, but most of the search results are from Google's automatic check of similar words ("compulsivity") and references from studies that simply cite SCA as a group in this field. POV wise this article is in terrible shape - not only is it being used as a battleground (evident from the prose and SCA affiliates threatening editors with libel charges), it reads more like a self-help and advertising brochure than an encyclopedic article. While I do not agree the organization is notable, as was stated on the help desk by User:Fredrick day: "the current version needs to be taken out the back...". -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I said it might be notable but the current version needs (at the very least) to be stubbed and if WP:RS are not provided this article should be deleted.. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd best delete the AA article also, if you think this 12 Step fellowship does not belong on Wikipedia. I'd like to see what all those alcoholics would do to you. As for taking SCA out in the back... that sounds like a threat to me. Charming.--141.155.57.125 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Though that isn't exactly applicable as Alcoholics Anonymous has 68 independent third-party references. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
SCA has been in existence for 25 years, a little patience is appreciated. There are plenty of references. This obnoxious deletion and attack seems more like plain homophobia to me, another beating with a baseball bat by people who misunderstand and feel angry at things they do not understand. It is ok, there's always something to learn from other people. --141.155.57.125 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please log back into your account. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Please review article on Homophobia when you make such references are taking someone out in the back and ... these comments are perceived as threats. And the attempt to delete this article (which actually does a good job of staying neutral) is also perceived as a threat, particularly as the other sexual recovery groups are not nominated for deletion, as this gay-friendly groups is.--Artistboynyc (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please learn to read - "person X needs to be taken out the back.." and "article X needs to be taken out the back" are entirely different statements. As for Homophobia, you seem to be making a rather large assumption about my sexuality. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While it doesn't make their threats any less dangerous, it is worth remembering that the people making most of the recent edits are newcomers. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep While I've been very disappointed with the behavior of the SCA members in regard to this article, especially the threating language they used when I was trying to discuss it, this version seems to be okay to me. Yes, I know it's the version I wrote, and don't want to act like I own the article. I also realize that the results published in "The Role of Prefrontal Systems in Sexual Behavior" article that used SCA's questionnaire summarized in that version are seen as derogatory by members of the organization. But, at that stage I believe it was within wikipedia's guidelines. I would recommend using that version with some changes in the language as to clarify that it's about brain dysfunction as it relates to addiction -- not implying any kind of moralistic judgment on SCA members. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, the members of SCA are simply trying to create a Wiki entry that accurately reflects SCA. Do we have an agenda? Absolutely. We want to help as many people as possible, as we were all helped ourselves. If we go a bit too far and do not completely abide by the rules of Wikipedia, I do apologize. It's not because we're trying to bend the rules. I, for one, am new to submitting edits to Wiki, so I certainly don't know the ins and outs. If we feel we're being attacked or marginalized, we're going to get emotional - it's an emotional issue that we feel strongly about. Things get said that shouldn't be said, but please try to understand. I do understand the importance of keeping the "encylopedic" language and tone of the entry. It is Wikipedia after all and not the SCA website. We simply want the information to be accurate. I'm not sure what would be gained by deleting the entry other than another successful right-wing attack on human rights - please, let's not contribute to that sad state of affairs. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdc8155 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Wikiproject LGBT should be informed of this? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Damn those sneaky bastards, putting ads in books and in scientific journals. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - And had you read those results, you would have found that most of those results either mention SCA in passing along with a host of other groups, are a advertisement put in a newspaper for workshops or classes, or are put out by SCA themselves. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needing major cleanup, or being edited by people with a COI, are not reasons for deletion. The Google results referenced by Richard Arthur Norton (of excellent vintage) show that the subject is clearly notable and in need of an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment SCA is notable, but it's worth mentioning that with many twelve-step groups these kinds of results can be misleading. In my experience (I've written articles on fifteen such groups) the majority of the results are not actually from articles discussing the group but rather listing it as one my many twelve-step groups, or it's simply listing contact information for it in a directory of support groups. There's enough material to write the article, but it's not as overwhelming as it might seem. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I forget what the wiki-jargon for this is, but the article steps away from being about the SCA in the middle of it and becomes an article about sexual compulsion. What's dangerous about that is that it's sexual compulsion as defined by the SCA, not a neutral sexual compulsion article. The article should be stripped of information that isn't directly related to independent sources discussing the SCA. Leebo T/C 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)*
  • Conditional Keep. Providing the article is extensively rewritten, or reverted, to make it into a neutral article rather than something that looks more like a SCA brochure, per WP:COI and WP:POV, before the AfD period is up. Also providing someone can find or provide independent reliable sources, such as mainstream newspaper or news magazine articles or academic journal articles, or independent books, to establish notability. Although I have heard of SCA for some time and strongly suspect that it is notable and deserves an article, I haven't found reliable sources that support that. Some of the past inappropriate language and uncivil comments are very troubling, otherwise I would be arguing harder to keep the article. The only reason I !voted conditional keep, is that I believe in improving articles rather than deleting them. In response to another comment, this AfD has absolutely nothing to do with homophobia, and I'm an editor who has a good record defending LGBT related articles. Nor is it a right wing attack. I reluctantly but essentially agree with most of Wooty's rationale. Bottom line: If the article is not cleaned up and RS not found, then Delete. — Becksguy (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is not a notable organization, and has a has a one-sided point of view. As others have noted, this is a WP:COATRACK article with a single source independent of the group and few possible sources readily available from an Internet search. I don't think it can be fixed. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Questions. Have you looked at the Google Books and Google Scholar results referenced above? And why to you link the phrase "few possible sources readily available from an Internet search" to WP:V, when WP:V says nothing about sources having to be readily available from an Internet search? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Update I rewrote the article. I went through the Google Scholar, News Archive, and Books again and found a few things I missed last time (or didn't have access too). There is definitely not an abundance of material on the organization, but there's enough to scrape an article together. I used the outline that the SCA members made, and reworded the part about the prefrontal cortex so it hopefully won't be mistaken for a derogatory comment. All together the reading, researching, and writing took me over six hours -- consider this (and read WP:LEGAL) before threating to sue me in the future. Incidentally, I contacted the SCA international service office to see if there were plans to file against me. The person who returned my call seemed perplexed and said SCA had no intention to do anything like it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I've changed my !vote to a full Keep based on all the very hard work Craigtalbert has done. It no longer reads like a SCA brochure, and there are now sufficient third party sources. Although I'm kinda surprised that there wasn't more press coverage, since it's been around for 25 years. This is a keeper now, as I believe that the various issues raised (WP:N, WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:COATRACK, WP:V) have been addressed. I wonder if it will stay this way for long, considering the reversion history, however, it's on my watchlist now. All I can say is ... Great job, Craigtalbert. — Becksguy (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of the excellent work performed by Craigtalbert (who should be commended). --Fredrick day (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wasn't sure whether the sources existed for a good article on this organisation, but Craigtalbert's rewrite addresses that concern, as well as the others raised in this discussion. EALacey (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (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.