Talk:alt.sex.stories

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 19, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Bilstad, Blake T. (2006). "Obscenity and Indecency on the Usenet: The Legal And Political Future of Alt.Sex.Stories". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2 (2): 0–0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00060.x. ISSN 1083-6101.

Links removed

I removed these links from the External Links section; they seem unrelated to alt.sex.stories.

A Sex Stories -- Alternative collection of free sex stories (home to over 4400 authors) with ability to read alt.sex.stories and alt.sex.stories.gay.moderated newsgroups from web browser.

A Gay Sex -- Alternative collection of free gay sex stories (home to over 1000 authors).

24.23.134.238 19:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link to Eli the Bearded's user page

I have removed the link from the article to user:Eli the Bearded, as per Wikipedia:Avoid self references it is not apropriate to link to Wikipedia user pages from the article. These links cause problems for our mirrors, the vast majority of which do not mirror the user: namespce. Even articles about Wikipedians, e.g. Jimmy Wales, there are no links to his user page here in the text. The only link to user:Jimbo Wales is in the External Links section, and is formated as an external link - i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales. Only on articles about that person are such links generally allowed, hence there is no link to Jimbo's user page on the Wikipedia article. Links to user pages are fine on article talk pages, as again these are not generally mirrored. Thryduulf 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't understand that when I reverted your edit. Thanks for explaining. At the time I was just thinking "why link to a non-existant page when there's a decent bio on his userpage?" --W.marsh 17:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Tag

I was surprised to see a Speedy Deletion tag posted, ostensibly because of "notability" and "illegal material." Let me address each one:

First, lack of notability is a criteria for deletion, not speedy deletion. The Usenet hierarchy alt.sex.stories is critical to an understanding of the growth of the internet into its present form. Usenet predates the Worldwide Web by well over a decade. Many people who are not familiar with the history and background that gave rise to the internet tend to think of the Web as the internet. That's simply not true, it is only one aspect of the Internet and only the most recent.

Before there was a Web, there was Usenet. And one of the most important portions of Usenet that drove the popularity of the web were the stories told through the alt.sex.stories hierarchies. This was an important factor in drawing people to the internet in the first place. As detailed by the article itself, understanding the alt.sex.stories hierarchy is critical to understanding how the internet was born. To say it lacks notability is absurd.

As to "illegal" materials, there is no "alt.sex.stories.pedo" as far as I can tell. If one was created in the past (and a Usenet group is easy to create), there is no indication that it in any way has propogated. My Usenet service is among the most comprehensive, with over 120,000 Usenet groups. There's no "pedo" subgroup. If any such group is out there, it is certainly not being distributed. Nonetheless, even if it was out there, it would still be protected under U.S. law; written materials --even involving minors -- are protected by the First Amendment.[1] There's no such thing as an "illegal" textual description of a sexual act.

I believe this nomination was made in bad faith and without any checking of notability or legality. Therefore, I will be removing the tag after a period to allow responses. Jtmichcock 12:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rehaul

I did a big edit of the page so if I left anything out, please feel free to add stuff back in. We just need to make sure that it doesn't go back to being as horrific as it was before, full of unencyclopedic content and non-neutral phrases. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Should the title be capitalized? LogicalFinance33 (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No (if you're sticking to original Usenet conventions). AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

I proposed a deletion of this article because there weren't enough sources and the article didn't have enough information on the subject. Please share your opinions of the proposal, as this is a very important subject. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been at Articles for Deletion three times and its consensus has been to keep it. Since this is the case, it's not eligible for deletion under Proposed Deletion. – Frood (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I didn't know. Thanks for the information. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frood, I haven't looked at the AfDs yet, and I wonder how old they are. The sourcing in the article is terrible. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the most recent attempt at deletion, not including mine, was back in 2014. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: the most recent one in 2014 was closed as speedy keep because it was seen as certainly notable. I agree that the sourcing is terrible though. – Frood (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I wish it had been as difficult to delete asstr (and its backup sites) as it was to delete the article about it.