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. What matters, ultimately, is that no reliable sources have been provided for the censorship issue.  Sandstein  16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy's Torment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

As stated in the article's Talk Page: This subject is not widely known, and any random article (or blog, for that matter) on the internet can be used for dicussion on internet censorship. Moreover, it is a personal point of view on whether or not the article is internet censorship. - Joel Lindley (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This does seem to have gotten some secondary coverage. Doesn't seem to be extremely notable, but might be worth covering briefly in alt.sex.bondage. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, delete this; secondary coverage seems to be trivial. But might be worth mentioning elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep its time we started serious coverage of usenet--who better? But I don't see the pt of the extended quote--if its meant to indicate the nature of the story, it does not seem all the adequate. DGG (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-If the material was written in a clearer manner, especially for those not familar with the information in the article, maybe it can possibly be merged with the Usenet article; of course, if proper sources are listed, and it's applicable to the Usenet article. {I haven't checked myself, but I'm sure there is an article dedicated to Usenet}.--Joel Lindley (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete just because it happened on usenet doesn't mean it gets a pass on inclusion guidelines. The coverage is extremely trivial and not remotely notable. Its not wikipedia's job to cover things that no one else really cares to cover in any real amount of detail.--Crossmr (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cindy's Torment was an epochal event in the early days of usenet, both in terms of revealing that it was technically possible to remove postings throughout the usenet, and in that for many years it was considered a sophomore rite of passage to request a re-posting of Cindy's Torment on alt.sex.bondage. The deleters seem to be doing so on the basis of ignorance of Usenet history. Which I think well deserves to be documented. Just because it happened on the internet, doesn't mean it automatically was culturally trivial. If someone really thinks that something that caused the non-inclusion of the alt hierarchy in many major educational institutions, is trivially notable, I will just have to respectfully disagree. (full disclosure, I am the creator of the article so it is perhaps not surprising I think recording this bit of internets early history is significant enough to merit a dictionary entry). -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Your little dig aside, the deletion was started on the fact that there is no coverage. No offense to your personal memory (which is not a reliable source unfortunately) there isn't anything indicating a greater notability of this event which is required for inclusion.If you want to prove notability go out and find some reliable sources which actually devoted some real coverage to this story.--Crossmr (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepDelete. The story of the outcry could be much better written (exactly which bodies protested, where, and what were the arguments used?), but it's referenced and it's noteworthy. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  noteworthy requires proof, please demonstrate it. there is no evidence of any signficiant coverage yet. This is an AfD, simply claiming something as notable without proving it doesn't float here.--Crossmr (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell no organizations protested over censoring this story, just a few individuals. VG ☎ 09:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked both sources, and they don't support the claims of the article. Changed to "delete". --Alvestrand (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge and redirect to Usenet in a "censorship" section. The article in Huston Chronicles touches on the story a few times, but it also has a lot of background on Usenet, and this isn't the only incident mentioned in that article. The same can be said about Prof. Shallit's talk (for a Computer Club, not a more serious venue). Big YMMV if this topic deserves an article of its own per WP:NOT#NEWS. VG ☎ 09:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm from my own living memory, that Cindy's Torment wasn't simply one of many cases of internet censorship. It was a real watershed event, a game changer, if you will. Previously to it, the widespread belief was that postings were impossible to censor, and many people were shocked to find out that censorship was actually, and not merely theoretically possible. Though of course re-postings of the text prooved John Gilmore's dictum that internet re-routes around censorship, treating it as damage. BTW, it is worth also noting that the list of internet topics that should be covered by a comprehensive USENET historiography, kept by Brad Templeton explicitly includes Cindy's Torment. I can't think of a better authority on what is notable about USENET than Brad. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean this list. 99% of the events there don't have a separate article in Wikipedia. I'm all for expanding Usenet#History, but a bullet in really long list, even if compiled by an authority on the subject, does not grant sufficient notability for a separate Wikipedia article. VG ☎ 10:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a more selective narrative Templeton doesn't mention Cindy's story as the watershed you remember. VG ☎ 10:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "selective" is a serious understatement. If we only had articles on the impressionistic and personal reminisces in that particular narrative, our coverage of Usenet would be very poor indeed. I will offer as a datapoint for the unique status of Cindy's Torment in the legend of Usenet, that clause 34 of the Usenet purity test goes as follows: "34. Lose five points if you've ever posted a request for "Cindy's Torment"." [1] It is incidentally the only posting referred to by name in that purity text, which to me is some kind of indication of its unique historic position. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that requesting the reposting of "any" sex story is at clause 33. and only confers a penalty of one point. I would also add that personally I don't find the characterisation of Brad Templetons Usenet history topic list as "really long" as remotely accurate. Everyone if of course invited to make up their own mind in an informed fashion. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is so beyond meaningless its not even funny. I can't believe that is what you want to hang your hat on to establish the notability of this story. A user created purity where this item is one of hundreds of items. I must have missed that one over at WP:N. If this is the best you can do I hope the closing administrator properly weigh the evidence. The various ways you can establish notability for this are pretty well outlined, find something in there.--Crossmr (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2008 (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.