From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Nudity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


As a question of neutrality is asked with a reference to this page, but without anybody asking for improvements wrote anything on it, I start the discussion, like I started the APNEL page.

I think the speedy deletion asked by Gaijin42 only twenty minutes after the page was created was really not justified. But may be the person who put it did not even take time to read the page and to see what is written about this association on Internet. But it's happy, several hours after DGG changed the message and put this comment "might be notable . Has been in frWP for several years". The new message was saying :

"This article or section reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone. Please help by either rewriting this article from a neutral point of view or by moving this article to Wikinews. When appropriate, blatant advertising may be marked for speedy deletion with {{db-spam}}."

According to the content of the article, several words are surprising.

  • a news release : (not very new the news, but that will be explained later)
  • an overly promotional tone : well, if we speak about what an association do, is it enought to be an overly promotional tone, and how to speak about this subject differently ?
  • a neutral point of view : the same: If somedy is able to do that, no problem for me.
  • moving this article to Wikinews : the most important in this article is to speak about an association. News are references, because somme well placed people of wikipedia want references. But I don't understand how this page should be considered just as a collection of news. Only one chapter can be considered like that.
  • blatant advertising : may be it was what Gaijin42 thought, but for this kind of article, I don't understand why.

As DGG understood, this English article is not something completly new, but a translation of the French page, as indicated at the end.

In fact, the first version of the French page was created on the 10 of march 2008, asked to be suppressed (by the normal way, not the seedy deletion like here) on the 16 of april 2008, and finaly deleted on the 4 of may 2008. You can se that on the French anarchopedia with the original content in the history page, and more shortly in the 2010 versions of the French Wikipedia page. The reason why the French wiki page for APNEL was deleted was in 2008 : the association was considered as not enough known at that time.

So, after that, the association worked a lot to be more known. And 2 years later, I made again the page with a lot of references to newspapers, radio and TV shows who spoke about the APNEL. And then the page stayed without anybody using notability reason to ask again the page to be deleted.

If the translation of this page was made by a man of new-zealand (it was a .doc and I wikified it to put it on-line), very few things were changed from the French version. Expecialy, as this association brings together French speaking people (mainly from France and Belgium) and very few out of French speaking countries, it is normal that media who spoke about it where mostly French speaking medias. It is not the most accessible kind of reference for a non french page, and so, I added a link to a forum page speaking about relation between APNEL and Stephen Gough with photos of hand written (in English) letters of this man, and also transcription of press news with the English version.

Now according to the problem of neutrality. As a member of this association since the beginning, and as the first writer of the French page (with te biggest part of the text), I am not the best person to make a more neutral page if neutrality is realy needed. But for me, asking for more neutrality by DGG at first, and by Dmol after is not a big problem. I do not need to do that alone and other French speaking natives who are member of the APNEL do not need it also. In fact, to get more neutral text if needed, several changes should be also done by external people who are not members of this association. That suposes they who would spend time to collect information about it to make their own opinion before writing something.

The problem of neutrality was not asked for the French page. But if it is a problem here, English speaking native will more easily find what is wrong in the text and will have more facilities to write corrections. Bech (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on APNEL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)