Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lolita Method
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. However, the fact that so many dedicated Wikipedians have been unable to verify the core information in this article leads me to conclude that we must delete it as unverifiable. I am going to exercise my discretion to do so.
If authoritative sources can be found verifying the core content of this article, it may someday be appropriate to nominate it for undeletion. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not noteworthy.
- Note: VfD started by Rad Racer
- Comment. I have a feeling this article might fall into the same situation as the internet memes and sci-fi fanboy arguments listed on VfD: Is it really notable enough to be in Wikipedia? I abstain. Zzyzx11 07:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Twelve google hits for "lolita method" including two from Wikipedia. Rad Racer 20:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if not a hoax. Google Groups gives more hits. Grue 20:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, likely hoax. Google on "Scott Donner" shows only this Wikipedia article; Google News on "Scott Donner" only shows postings in 1999 by a single user "pred@altavista.net". Similarly, Google News search on "Freedom Storehouse Press" shows only limited entries, some by "pred" himself. Significantly, none of these Google News postings predate 1999, although Usenet News was very actively used as early as the mid-1980s and very few topics were off limits in certain newsgroups like alt.tasteless and alt.sex.* and others. This seems like some guy doing self-promotion and inventing an "underground" legend and history for his 1999 Usenet posting. If some bona fide references could be provided that this underground book actually existed prior to the 1999 Usenet posting, and that it was actually noteworthy in some way (discussed in mainstream media even if only to strongly condemn it, or Congressional hearings or an FBI investigation or a blacklist somewhere), then it might be valid to keep. But a 1999 Usenet posting that didn't seem to generate any discussion on Usenet, either then or now ... that's not notable. There were only 3 responses to "Condor"'s Feb 2005 Usenet posting, nobody on Usenet speaking up to say they ever heard of or saw such a book in the 1980s. The burden of proof of notability, and non-hoax status of the alleged 1980s "legendary underground" hardcopy book, is on the original contributor. -- Curps 03:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment not a hoax, a quick search on http://www.asstr.org for "The Lolita Method" pulls 2 excerpts posted From: dantheman@freedomstorehousepress.com to alt.sex.stories.moderated: [1][2] (WARNING, these files may be considered child pornography where you reside). I remember hearing about this book floating among several pedos on AOL, back when I worked for them. So it definately exists. Whether or not this belongs on Wiki is the real question. I tend to think perhaps a 1 paragraph brief mention on Lolita would suffice. ALKIVAR™
03:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- These are post-1999 references, and they're posted by "Freedom Storehouse Press" itself, the publisher, which is likely some one-or-two person operation. Seems like self-promotion. I'm not disputing that "Lolita Method" may have been posted to Usenet, but lots of things of every description were posted to Usenet, including material even more controversial than this. The claim to noteworthiness would seem to rest on the alleged factual existence of a notorious underground hardcopy book circulating in the 1980s; but this claim would seem to be a hoax invented at the time of the original Usenet posting. In other words, it seems that the original publication of the material was on Usenet and the legend of an underground hardcopy book was likely invented in that posting itself. Or at least that a hardcopy version was not widely known or circulated. If there really was a noteworthy and notorious book in circulation, it would have left some trace or evidence of its existence... the Moral Majority or evangelical groups or Congressional hearings or children's advocacy groups, etc. etc. would have taken note of it and condemned it. Other equally unsavory topics like snuff films or satanic cults were certainly widely discussed and condemned in mainstream news media... why does there seem to be no trace whatsoever of this supposedly notorious and therefore noteworthy book prior to 1999, if it was widely circulated a decade earlier? This seems to be a vanity article, or spam advertising self-promotion. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if references can be provided for the actual existence and notoriety of a hardcopy book in the late 1980s and early 1990s. -- Curps 04:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I dont disagree with that, however the article itself states it was originally published in 1989 "it was published by Freedom Storehouse Press in 1989". Can we verify this fact as true or not? I've no doubt it didnt hit usenet til later. ALKIVAR™ 06:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I dont disagree with that, however the article itself states it was originally published in 1989 "it was published by Freedom Storehouse Press in 1989". Can we verify this fact as true or not? I've no doubt it didnt hit usenet til later. ALKIVAR™
- These are post-1999 references, and they're posted by "Freedom Storehouse Press" itself, the publisher, which is likely some one-or-two person operation. Seems like self-promotion. I'm not disputing that "Lolita Method" may have been posted to Usenet, but lots of things of every description were posted to Usenet, including material even more controversial than this. The claim to noteworthiness would seem to rest on the alleged factual existence of a notorious underground hardcopy book circulating in the 1980s; but this claim would seem to be a hoax invented at the time of the original Usenet posting. In other words, it seems that the original publication of the material was on Usenet and the legend of an underground hardcopy book was likely invented in that posting itself. Or at least that a hardcopy version was not widely known or circulated. If there really was a noteworthy and notorious book in circulation, it would have left some trace or evidence of its existence... the Moral Majority or evangelical groups or Congressional hearings or children's advocacy groups, etc. etc. would have taken note of it and condemned it. Other equally unsavory topics like snuff films or satanic cults were certainly widely discussed and condemned in mainstream news media... why does there seem to be no trace whatsoever of this supposedly notorious and therefore noteworthy book prior to 1999, if it was widely circulated a decade earlier? This seems to be a vanity article, or spam advertising self-promotion. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if references can be provided for the actual existence and notoriety of a hardcopy book in the late 1980s and early 1990s. -- Curps 04:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not alt.sex.stories (even as interesting as WikiEroticFiction would be). -- Cyrius|✎ 05:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Curps. Radiant! 13:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline keep, if the damn thing's existence can be verified - David Gerard 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep if the book can be verified to really exist, delete otherwise.— JIP | Talk 18:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)- I would interpret the above as a delete, since you seem to be saying the burden of proof is on proving that it did exist (which I agree with), and that hasn't been furnished yet. But existence alone isn't enough... there's also the issue of notoriety or noteworthiness... not every book out of the millions published in the 1980s is in Wikipedia, far from it. I'd really like to see some indication that this book made waves in some way or left some kind of trace (if it even existed)... that somebody somewhere actually took note of it or knew of it, other than the authors and their immediate circle of acquaintances. -- Curps 19:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Question: are the doubts about the supposed history of the book or its mere existence? If its existence cannot be demonstrated, delete. If its existence can be demonstrated, but the facts are in doubt, keep and cleanup. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The date of publication, and the fact that it wasn't circulated through mainstream bookstores, could explain the lack of internet references, although that doesn't establish notability. Rad Racer 01:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- DELETE in the strongest way possible after more research this does appear to be a partial fake. The book itself in question has been found on Archive.org. The acknowledgements page from it states it was created in 1995 and from the archive.org copy the main page for it states: "Okay, for those of you who just NEVER GOT IT! THE LOLITA METHOD is a work of metafiction – a combination of literary criticism & storytelling dressed up as a self-help book. Still puzzled? Okay, snot-brain, I’ll FUCKING SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU! ALL pedo fuck fiction falls into a predictable assortment of themes and characters. Good authors learn how to mix and match these elements like literary Geranimals (tell me I’m not dating myself with this reference, PLEASE!) THE LOLITA METHOD is a satire of these hackneyed cliches.". Any and all history on this page is faked since its claims predate the book itself. ALKIVAR™ 04:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So does it actually exist as a real book or does it not? If it does, then either keep the article as it stands or rewrite it to reflect the real content of the book. If it does not, delete the article. — JIP | Talk 10:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- if you count a pay only membership html document as a book then yes, otherwise no. ALKIVAR™ 11:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't. It would have to have been released in public bookstores - if only specialist erotica bookstores, at that. A pay only membership HTML document has far too limited an audience. I guess you'd have to have been interested in such "Lolita hunting" in advance to even know the document existed. I change my earlier "undecided" vote to delete. — JIP | Talk 11:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really understand. Who wrote that quote that Alkivar mentioned? Rad Racer 13:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- that quote was written by the PRED the "author" of this webcontent on the introduction page for The Lolita Method. ALKIVAR™ 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So he admitted it was never published as a physical book, and was written in 1995? I tried to find Lolita Method on Archive.org, but nothing came up on the search. Rad Racer 18:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You werent looking in the right place then. Archive.org has a copy of the freedomstorehousepress.com site which is where i found all this stuff. ALKIVAR™ 22:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You werent looking in the right place then. Archive.org has a copy of the freedomstorehousepress.com site which is where i found all this stuff. ALKIVAR™
- So he admitted it was never published as a physical book, and was written in 1995? I tried to find Lolita Method on Archive.org, but nothing came up on the search. Rad Racer 18:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Beats me. But if it was never a real book, the article can go. That's all I care about. — JIP | Talk 13:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- that quote was written by the PRED the "author" of this webcontent on the introduction page for The Lolita Method. ALKIVAR™
- I don't really understand. Who wrote that quote that Alkivar mentioned? Rad Racer 13:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't. It would have to have been released in public bookstores - if only specialist erotica bookstores, at that. A pay only membership HTML document has far too limited an audience. I guess you'd have to have been interested in such "Lolita hunting" in advance to even know the document existed. I change my earlier "undecided" vote to delete. — JIP | Talk 11:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- if you count a pay only membership html document as a book then yes, otherwise no. ALKIVAR™
- So does it actually exist as a real book or does it not? If it does, then either keep the article as it stands or rewrite it to reflect the real content of the book. If it does not, delete the article. — JIP | Talk 10:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So if it exists why the article should be deleted? If you researched the topic why don't you go and fix the article? Grue 06:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Archive.org is the Internet Archive "Wayback Machine", which archives old versions of websites. So Alkivar is almost certainly referring to an online version on some now-defunct website, not a paper book. -- Curps 11:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 1) Just because something exists does not mean it belongs on wikipedia. 2) it was never a print version book, unless you printed the html pages off. It was a paid membership only html document created in 1995. 3) I feel this merits a delete, I do not need to explain my personal criteria to you. ALKIVAR™ 11:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless facts are independently verified. Gamaliel 16:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. OK, the archive.com links I found were this one and this one. Was the book printed in the late 80's/early 90s and the acknowledgements written in 1995, when it published on the website? Or was the whole thing written in 1995? Hmm.. Rad Racer 02:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I think we are getting close to resolving this. See The Story of Freedom Storehouse Press, which gives an account of how Pred got involved with them. Then there is Pred's account from Google Groups:
- Nov 23 1999, 12:00 am show options
- Newsgroups: alt.tasteless
- From: p...@altavista.net - Find messages by this author
- Date: 1999/11/23
- Subject: {AT} The Lolita Method, Ch. 1 (1/2) .. by PRED
- Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Everyone:
- As promised months ago, I am posting the first three chapters of my book, The Lolita Method: The Sure Fire Way to Pick Up "Forbidden" Girls. This ends Part 1 of the book. I will be posting the next sections as I re-edit and re-format them. Eventually, the entire text of The Lolita Method will be posted here on alt.tasteless. It will then be archived on Jaydog's alt.tasteless archive -- http://www.aracnet.com/~jaydog/ -- if he's willing.
- The original first edition of The Lolita Method was written and published by Freedom Storehouse Press in 1989, with a second edition printed in 1991. I have since revised and updated the text. The book was co-written with a friend of mine who has given me permission to revise and post it. At the time I wrote this, I was not PRED. I was just a humble public school teacher with a dream.
- I left teaching and a failed first marriage soon after I completed the first draft of The Lolita Method, relocating to New York City. There I met a host of underground writers in the 'zine world. I showed one of them my manuscript for The Lolita Method, and he turned me on to Freedom Storehouse Press. They printed and published the book, and it was distributed under the counter in porno shops and headshops.
- Anyone who has a copy of the first or second edition has a real collector's item. I've been looking for an extra copy for the last couple months now, but no luck so far. If you have one, put it up on e-bay. I've had an offer of $100 for the book, which is amusing because it was printed on cheap paper with a staple binding.
- Well, that's enough reminiscing for one day. Enjoy ..
Rad Racer 02:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme delete. The techniques in this book didn't even work. Total ripoff. —RaD Man (talk) 04:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Good sleuthing on the Lolita Method article. The The Story of Freedom Storehouse Press clinches the matter. They claim to have met Pred through Usenet. And I was about to say that proves it was later than 1989, but looking at the Wikipedia Usenet article, I see that Usenet was created in 1980. But here we seemingly have the smoking gun:
- Although PRED takes frequent hiatuses from writing and posting to ASS, even during his absence his presence looms over the group like an omnipresent storm cloud on the horizon. When Todd, Gary and Sean first stumbled upon ASS in the Fall of 2001, PRED had been retired from the newsgroup for over a year. Yet, frequent mentions and allusions to his work prompted the trio to investigate his writings. The resulting study would forever change the three partners’ business plans while simultaneously giving birth to the concept and reality of Freedom Storehouse Press.
- After reading the body of PRED’s work, the trio’s mission became clear. Contact PRED and solicit his involvement in a website devoted to the promotion of ultracore fiction.
- Reaching PRED was simple enough. His email address appears at the beginning and end of each of his posts. By the time Todd sent out the first email query to PRED, all three partners had done an extensive as well as intensive Google search on PRED. They were now intimately familiar with almost every story, commentary and flame he had ever posted. They also knew he had officially retired from ASS a year earlier, and this time he appeared serious.
Etc., etc. From the first paragraph, it appears obvious that Pred's relationship with them began in Fall 2001. Yet - on Google groups, Pred's post of Nov 23, 1999 states that Freedom Storehouse Press published his book in 1989. Why would he have written about them in 1999 if they did not contact him until 2001? Ah, the plot thickens! There is some sort of contradiction here. Well, I thought I had solved this mystery, but now it appears it may never be solved. Rad Racer 06:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.