Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

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 no consensus. I understand the WP:IAR argument about WP:CHILDPROTECT, which is as much a policy as WP:NOTCENSORED, but it is unlikely that this page would be of much use to pedophiles who wish to meet each other or their targets. Returning to the more usual arguments, we have WP:OR and WP:COATRACK on the "delete" side, while the "keep" side points out the LOC classification and the sources, and that the problems are potentially surmountable. Overall, this is a pretty balanced debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:IAR. This was an article longtime tagged WP:OR that I had redirected to WP:Child protection per WP:BOLD. The redirct was contested by Delicious Carbumcle. I feel this is a classic case of WP:NOT#IINFO/DIRECTORY. This laundry list of a rather contrived sub-sub-genre which is supposedly "limited to works of fiction, memoirs and non-fiction books in the English language. Books first published in other languages are listed when an English translation has been published. Scientific, professional, medical, research studies and self-help books on child sexual abuse are generally not included". It could be just as easily dealt with by using the category Category:Pedophilia. I also feel that due to the sensitivy of the topic, it would be desirable to forestall any potential WP:ADVOCACY by having it deleted. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The redirect was quite obviously improper, which was why I reverted it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect was a bad idea and really makes no sense at all. Deletion, however, does. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To elaborate: This vote has nothing to do with the content. It simply is not a notable reason to list books, it can never be remotely complete, and in many ways is purely subjective. However, there is no justification whatsoever for redirecting it to the WP namespace. First of all, the likelihood of someone ever coming to this article is nil unless from Google. So, someone clicks from Google and gets this pedantic page saying "Wikipedia cares"... about what? What on earth does that have to do with this list? If you're suggesting everyone coming to this article needs to be redirected to a page saying how evil pedophiles are, with no encyclopedic information, you're insulting a lot of people with no benefit. I can't think of any other gotcha redirects on WP, and I see no reason for this to be the first. The policy page has zero whatsoever to do with this article, which should be deleted on its own merits and no redirect left behind. I'm amazed people are supporting the redirect, frankly. --Golbez (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maintain redirect I agreed with the redirect but if people are going to keep reverting it, I agree with deletion. I can't really highlight anything else that Ohconfucius hasn't pointed out already. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 16:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page cannot avoid being a hub for pedophiles who are interested in either meeting each other, working together, or encouraging interaction with minors (I find it regrettable that so many times ones sees "young adult literature" appended to the titles—quite unsourced, of course). In this respect, there is clear relevance of either a breach of the new policy WP:CHILDPROTECT or a failure to obey it in principle. In particular, that policy states, "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked. The history log shows the work of one user who has been indeffed for promoting such relationships, and who is possibly a sock of a user previously indeffed for the same reason.

    With some notable exceptions (a small minority are what you might call works of literary value), the items are of low to very low in quality (kidie-porn would be a kind description). The articles on those books tend to be based on unsourced claims, and appear to comprise mostly poorly written synopses that focus on matters sexual between adults and children, or less often between children—whether platonic or actual physical sex. Until yesterday morning, the page included such gems as "Mother encourages her husband to sleep with their daughters, Mother tries to sleep with her own Father, Mother gets in bed nude to talk with daughter and son who've just finished sex."—redundant given there's a link target to the article on the book in question, unsourced, even in that article; and unbalanced, given the sole concentration on nakedness and sex—it is, frankly, tittillatory, and totally lacks an educational or reseach function. While that has now been removed, the nature of such a hub on a wiki is that the tittillatory creeps back little by little when we give it the imprimatur by retaining the list. The redundant teasers suggest that Ohconfucius's observation that "Wikipedia is not a directory" is relevant here.

    Most items listed, and certainly all of those that could lay claims to notability, are contained within other, much more suitable categories that themselves do not call into question the child-protection policy.

    This poorly constructed list breaches a number of policies and should be deleted. Tony (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete aside from the whole subject topic, I do not believe these types of incomplete and subjective book lists belong on wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with some of the earlier delete rationales, but I support deletion on the grounds that this is a mostly indiscriminate and arbitrary categorization, similar to the now-deleted List of songs featuring hand claps. Gigs (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from the problematic subject matter, how do we know that if the books are indeed portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors? I don't see sources on a majority of books here.—Chris!c/t 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, primarily original research. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!c/t 19:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic with reasonable level of presence in literary arena and popular culture. Library of Congress has this as a subject heading(s) so OR can be avoided; indeed, see article before it was reduced. Deletion rationales not valid. Redirect to WP:CHILDPROTECT?? I think that shows the premise of this nomination. Problems with the article can be fixed. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles about the books, there's no reason not to list them, and redirects from article space to project space is never done. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete reasonings are not necessarily about censorship, there are valid reasons independent from the content to remove it. There are reasons not to list them when the list is subjective and not useful; as was pointed out above, I'm sure we have lots of articles on songs that include hand clapping, but that doesn't mean we make a list of them. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I suggest removing Category:Pederastic literature, as that, too, is subjective and not useful. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. Also, you're kind of proving my point - if such a thing can be handled in a category, it should be, and usually lists without any commentary should, if they're kept around, be made into a category. You still haven't given a reason why this list, as it is, should be kept, apart from "censorship" which is not the primary reason for removing it anyway, it just became that way because someone misguidedly redirected it to WP space. --Golbez (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying that. You're saying delete this, for emotional and non-policy based reasons, and I'm pointing out the inconsistancy of your opinion. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I literally just gave a perfectly valid objective and policy-based reason (replace a context-free list with a category), among my other non-emotional reasons (I question whether you actually read my post). The only inconsistency here is the deviation between my words and your interpretation of them. --Golbez (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I seem to have angered a few here by applying that redirect, but independently of that, nobody appears to have explained why a category couldn't and doesn't do the job as well if not better than this list. It is Everard's own inconsistent nonsense to suggest that if the list goes, so should Category:Pederastic literature, for their existences are independent of each other. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a fascinating list. Most of the titles are unfamiliar to me, but Lolita is obvious; Color Purple, too. Had to refresh myself on Memoirs of a Geisha and Suddenly Last Summer. Interested to know where the child sex abuse is in Leaves of Grass. In any event, interesting list and I think notable. Predation is a legitimate concern. Monitoring should address that. Lionel (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Monitoring" of what? What does that statement really have to do with this? --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question. The list is curious. For the most part it's of books of which I've never heard. I picked the first among them (Acid Row) that was in genuinely alphabetical order, and read that it is a 2001 novel by crime-writer Minette Walters. The novel examines contemporary reactions to paedophilia and resulting urban rioting, and was shortlisted for the Crime Writers' Association Gold Dagger. And that was all, with no references. A crap article, though for all I know a fine novel. ¶ The next one is Bait. More precisely, it's Bait (novel). However, there's no such article; it's instead a redirect to Alex Sánchez (author). And what do we learn there about Bait? That (i) His novel, Bait, about a teenage boy struggling with secrets from his past was released in June, 2009. And that (ii) Bait (2009): Florida Book Award Gold Medal for Young Adult Fiction. No sourcing for either, and no assertion that it's about pedophilia or similar. ¶ But of course there's some good stuff here, supreme among them Lolita, which is in the Category:Novels with an ephebophilia theme. How is categorization inadequate? -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, the articles here on most children's books are a disgrace, being largely written either by naïve children or by publicists. I have tried to get two close friends who are professionals in children's literature to work on them, but they won't go near Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a familiar story. Rather like the articles on the grammar of English, many of which are written by people for whom "grammar" is what's written in silliest of the prescriptive grammar books that mindlessly repeat what similar, older books have said. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criterion as always is a notable work where it's a significant part of the plot. In all the books I know myself the appropriateness is unmistakable. In some of the ones I don;t , from the plot description it's also obvious. In a few it is not from the material immediately available to me, but if any is reasonably questioned, then some source is needed--as a notable book has reviews, this will normally be mentioned in any review, that should settle the issue. inclusion of any is challenged, a cite may be required. A few of the books do not have articles, but for most, such as the classics by de Sade, they obviously should; a the one or two others would seem right also. but there is a caveat--this should be limited to novels. If we're going to have a list of every notable non-fiction book that concerns these topics, the criteria might be a little trickier & the list should be separate.
The arguments that this list is inappropriate for child protection reasons are a direct contradiction of NOT CENSORED, as was the redirect. Some of the books, again, de Sade being the example, are in my opinion fall into the category of famous pornography. Our articles, & our list, is not however for a pornographic purpose nor can it be said to promote child pornography. The description of sexual acts involving children in fiction has probably contributed greatly to the current increased awareness of these acts in RL, and the consequent public revulsion.
The fact that NOT CENSORED is relevant is shown by the attempt at the redirect, which was most certainly censorship, and the comment that the list is "a hub for pedophiles" (a comment which in any case is pure hysteria.) (& those actions/comments came from the 2 leading advocates of deletion of the article). The attempt to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Aside from the explicit motivation I just mentioned, most of the arguments against this list would not be made otherwise. The comparison to books about hand-clapping is the weakest of straw men imaginable. The statement that the books could be covered in other categories is absurd--ever item in Wikipedia could be in another category. The comment that most of the works are of low quality is irrelevant and absurd, considering that quality is irrelevant to a book being notable--and in fact I think the statement is false--the children's books I did not know are generally prize-winners. As for the prior annotations, I would certainly defend them, but it seems as if that discussion may need to be settled in a RfC. (as for objectivity there, we can always use quotes from the books or the reviews.) Suggesting a inclusion in only the category Pedophilia is drastic undercategorization. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that the books could be covered in other categories is absurd--ever item in Wikipedia could be in another category. Let's take "item" to mean list. Yes, List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords) could indeed be "Category:National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)" (or some less awkward title). However, (i) most of the items that constitute that list article do not now have their own articles, and if they did exist such articles would be short and uninteresting; and (ii) every item in the list has a terse but informative description, making the list much more than the sum of its parts. So conversion of that list to a category would be tedious and detrimental. Just where would the absurdity be here, DGG? -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is hysteria. Pedophilia and the sexual abuse of children are written about in fiction, and it is useful to readers to have this list as a reference. There is no advocacy occurring here, and deleting this list will not protect children. Are you going to delete Lolita too? People researching the issue of the fictional depiction of child sex abuse will find this useful, and only bluelinks are included so this is not a grubby list of self-published fantasising. Problems with unsourced summaries or questionable entries are dealt with by editing, not deletion, same as any other list. I edited this list to add The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer, so is Tony going to directly accuse me of being a pedophile? Fences&Windows 02:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody has proposed that Lolita should be deleted. (Were anyone to propose it, I would stoutly oppose.) Are you saying that Tony accuses anyone who adds a book to this list of being a pedophile; and if not, just what are you saying about him? And where, exactly, is the hysteria? ¶ Questions aside, a reality check. For almost two hours before you wrote this keep vote of yours, the current version had been this one (which remains the current version as I write). You say "only bluelinks are included". Untrue. Yes, most of the links were and are blue, but some weren't and aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This page cannot avoid being a hub for pedophiles who are interested in either meeting each other, working together, or encouraging interaction with minors" implicitly argues that those who add to this article are pedophiles. It's also a false argument, as this page can avoid being a playground for pedophiles just the same as any other articles they might be interested in. The hysteria is suggesting that this list of books can be used to harm children. The point about Lolita is that the exact same arguments about attracting pedophiles made to support deletion also apply to that article. Sure, take a close look at anyone who spends too much time editing this article (the same as with any articles on this subject, and I do see now that someone who heavily edited this article was recently indeffed as a returned banned user, no surprises for guessing what they might've been banned for...), but just because pedophiles might get a thrill out of the books it doesn't mean we shouldn't list them. Previous versions may have had redlinks to non-notable books (redlinks to notable books are fine), but clean up has been conducted, so that's not an issue now. Fences&Windows 02:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder about assertion that you quote at the head of your comment. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume for a moment that it's true. It neither argues nor implies that people adding to the article are pedophiles. (Compare: (a) "The 'Snail and Rucola' pub cannot avoid being a hub for binge drinkers." (b) "People who buy a drink at the 'Snail and Rucola' pub are binge drinkers".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic of this list, pedophilia and sexual abuse of minors in literature, is perfectly notable (see gBooks results). The criteria for inclusion seem simple enough to define (pedophilia/child sex abuse is a main theme of the book, and the list contains only redlinks), so all that is needed are references, which should be added rather than deleting the article. Wikipedia is not censored, so as long as this list does not promote pedophilia, it is acceptable. —fetch·comms 02:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a difference between googling (whether generally or in books or whatever) for three words and googling for the string (marked by quotation marks) of those three words. Try this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know. And I didn't use quotations for a purpose. In my search, the fourth result also seemed promising. But it did not say "pedophilia in literature" without any words in between. It said "This imagery explains the popularity of clerical sexual exploitation in anticolonial literature". Yes, using quotes is good most of the time. But "pedophilia in literature" is not a well-defined phrase; that is, there are many ways to say the same thing and I did not want to exclude those ways from my search. —fetch·comms 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is currently rotten with unsourced and erroneous claims and Original Research. IMO it will always be a magnet for OR. Of the books I have read in that list, the majority clearly do not belong there.
    Given the way Wikipedia works, the right approach to presenting this information is as a category, not a list in mainspace. (We might have to restructure the relevant categories.) That focuses discussion at the individual articles about books, where people who know about the books can get involved; having the discussion at a separate list-of article has not produced trustworthy content, and probably never will produce useful content. Cheers, CWC 03:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are a boatload of bluelinks here. That seems to indicate a useful list. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could create a list of everyone with an article with the letter "h" as the second letter in their name. It would be entirely bluelinks, and it would be entirely useless. A list having bluelinks is not in itself an indicator of usefulness. --Golbez (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Fetchcomms and F&W. (e.c.) "Wikipedia is not censored"—wrong, actually, if you want to put it in such bald terms. Just as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is wrong (not if you're a blocked user, or topic-banned). All freedoms come with a few of the rough edges smoothed out.

    A better argument is required than that same old one that's dragged out, by implication: that removing a dysfunctional, redundant, poorly constructed, or socially tendentious page amounts to censorship. It is socially tendentious because it attempts to organise a large amount of information of highly questionable notability that appears to be largely for titillation and arousal, rather than educational or research value.

    I see someone above has used an argument that there is worthy material listed; yes, but the little that is worthy—even by the lowest literary standards—is freely accessible under other, more intuitive categories and lists. Here, these worthy titles are drowned out by the dross. I'm not being an intellectual snob, nor, if you please, a sexual prude (nothing like it); but have a look at some of those articles. They are mostly unreferenced (even the claim to be "young adult" literature is unreferenced), so who could tell whether they are a product of some user's fervent imagination. They are usually appallingly written, and many comprise a rather unbalanced synopsis of a storyline that is yawn-material (these books once sold because they titillate a narrow demographic).

    We do a disservice to users by mixing a few good books in with so much rubbish. Inclusion by a single criterion (depicts pedophile activity and/or child sexual abuse) has produced a bad result for any serious intellectual inquiry or educational purpose. Tony (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, yes, it is technically censored, but for the purposes of this article, it's a valid topic, so deleting it doesn't make sense. I don't quite understand the rest of your comment—did you mean that people may be adding into the list non-pedophilic books, or that the books themselves in the list depict fantastical elements and that the books are rubbish? Lolita is a well-known and highly regarded book with a main theme of pedophilia, but yes, there are many trashy novels about the subject, too. However, that doesn't mean they should not be included on a list whose criteria they fit. Adding references for the listings is something that needs to be done independent of AfD. —fetch·comms 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not redirect to WP:Child protection ; that makes absolutely no sense. Books with these themes scenes may advocate for or against, or make no judgment on the issue. A memoir by an abuse survivor is not an advocacy book for child sexual abuse. Mystic River (novel) is a novel containing child sexual abuse, but which is not an advocacy book. Either keep or delete, do not redirect. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nom's arguments are invalid and nonsensical. This is a list of notable books grouped by a significant shared theme. That this is a Library of Congress classification establishes for me beyond all doubt that this theme is encyclopedic and verifiable. Redirecting to WP:Child protection is one of the most absurd proposals I've ever seen here. postdlf (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though I'm an Inclusionist, I don't believe that this list belongs on WP. For the nebulous benefit the article might have, it has tremendous capacity for bad publicity (you just know which one of the 3,416,546 articles is going to be quoted by a journalist wanting to tip a bucket on WP). With the lack of referencing, this page appears (at best) as OR, and (at worst) little more than an atrocious happy-hunting ground.  HWV258.  20:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think publicity should affect whether this article is deleted or not. We get bad publicity because people accuse our admins of bias against a certain ethnic group or a religious ideal or whatever. —fetch·comms 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You write two sentences. Whether or not I agree with it, I understand each. But I don't understand the combination. Are you perhaps implying that a list such as this would not create bad publicity? If this is what you are implying, are you perhaps underestimating the degree to which the English-language mass media pander to and encourage stupidity? The Onion News Network and Colbert Nation are only slight tweaks to what's widely and straightfacedly consumed as "news" or "current affairs". -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've already addressed the OR issue. The Library of Congress has various headings pertinent to this article; see previous versions of this article that did use these headings. Sources can document a fiction as being substantially about paedophilia / child sexual abuse. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolutely delete. Ohconfucius states the case well enough. Others filled in more details. Why not use the existing cat? Delete it and then salt it a bit. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as grotesquely confused and useless. ¶ Let's see what it actually says. The list is primarily limited to works of fiction, memoirs and non-fiction books in the English language. Why? What's the construct validity or the relationship with the title? ¶ Books first published in other languages are listed when an English translation has been published. Well, yes -- but we'd already read that the material was "in the English language", and not that it was "written in the English language". ¶ [S]elf-help books on child sexual abuse are generally not included. I don't know what these books would be. ¶ Scientific, professional, medical, research studies [...] are generally not included. This suggests to me a perverse exclusion of those books that are likely to be the most worthwhile. ¶ So anyway, we seem to be in for a list of books that an airport bookstall might consider stocking. But no! Every item bar one at the end is fiction. Whoa, not so fast! Among the fiction is "Beyond the Tears: A True Survivor's Story" by Lynn C. Tolson. Is this fiction, or isn't it? (It needn't be: these days we shouldn't blink at novels being waggishly described by their authors as "true stories". Plus of course there's the genre of fraudulent confessional.) Hard to say immediately: contrary to what's airily written above, there are several not-blue-links, and this is one of them. ¶ Let's look at a section of what does appear to be fiction. I choose the "C"s, and in the description use "pedophilia" as shorthand for "paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors". Chain of Evidence: article says nothing about pedophilia. The Color Purple: don't know; I got bogged down reading the he-did, she-did. Counterfeit Son: seems to fit (NB the article is completely unsourced). Corydon: described as a set of essays. If they're essays, why's this being touted as fiction? And the article on it (completely unsourced) says nothing about pedophilia. The Counterfeiters: article (which is completely unsourced) says nothing about pedophilia. The Crucible: yes, this one fits. The Cat Who Walks Through Walls: article (which is completely unsourced) says nothing about pedophilia. ¶ This article is wretched. If a list of this title were intrinsically worthwhile (and I see no reason why it should be), then well over half of the current content should be cut. But even then it would have no advantage over a category. And categories -- more precise categories -- already exist, as we see with Category:Novels with an ephebophilia theme. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear,-- in this case--such information as author and date as a minimum--thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that their existences are independent of each other. However, although there is no reason not to have both, there is equally no reason why we must have both. I don't feel that anybody has demonstrated the value added in keeping this list of 'd-list' paedophile porn. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Careful how you characterize Lolita, Ohconfucius, or you might succeed in irritating me [emoticon]. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a straightforward coatrack, many of the titles listed don't even belong in it (they were likely put there as a "screen" to hide the pith of what the article is meant to do) and yes, as Hoary says, this is what categories were made for. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very poignant observation. It explains why I couldn't reconcile the coherence of the defined criteria with the list of books named. It has now been rendered obvious that the original list, complete with its numerous red linked book titles, was being built to further some ulterior motive, and Lolita and Colour Purple were added to make the list appear more respectable/acceptable. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been thinking more about the title, and its odd fit for a list that's primarily limited to [itself an odd notion!] works of fiction, memoirs and non-fiction books in the English language but in which Scientific, professional, medical, research studies [...] are generally not included. The last bunch are, well, heavy; you wouldn't take examples to the beach, would you? So if this article were (against my judgment) to survive, how about retitling it List of recreational reading on pedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, or List of books portraying pedophilia or sexual abuse of minors that may be read for pleasure? Not my idea of recreation or pleasure, you understand (aside from that profoundly moral book Lolita and perhaps one or two other titles that I haven't yet noticed), but different strokes...... -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes. Lolita is almost the antithesis to paedophile literature. Most paedophiles would probably die of boredom waiting for the juicy bits, and feel completely let-down because the author's mastery of the English language allowed him to create the illusion/delusion of sordid story, without any graphic depiction of sex. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary and Ohconfucius have added new layers of commentary that have reinforced the argument, in my view, for deletion. Tony (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As to the question I've heard of "what parent would want such a list", I think many would. Mostly for making sure their kids aren't reading any of the books on the list. Lots of parents like lots of lists. Various ideological groups put out such lists for their adherents. If I see my kid reading "The Turner Diaries", I'd not wish him to. But I know what that book is, maybe another parent doesn't, and could have used a list of "racist literature". Likewise, I might not like my kid reading books that glorify or present as normal, adult/child sexual relations. I think some of those types of books are wrote to express the author's own wishes, or to try to shift what our culture takes as "normal". Or both. Alexandria177 (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Tony (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tony, you know that I am, having "discussed" this with me before. Therefore your "question" is not only rhetorical but serves only to insult me with the implication that I write, comment, edit or vote to no purpose. I appreciate you demonstrating that you had no logical rebuttal, though. Thank you. Alexandria177 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out to me in our policies where it says Wikipedia is a guide to parenting. PS, if you see your kid reading the Turner Diaries, you shouldn't need a list of racist literature; you should take it and look at it yourself and judge whether or not they should be reading it. I've read it; if you can't figure out it's racist literature within two pages, then ... well, insults would follow here. It's called being a parent, not relying on the Internet to tell you how to do it. Should Wikipedia also produce a list of breakfast cereals that have too much sugar, as defined by consensus? A list of video games that have violent, sexual, or otherwise objectionable content (defined by.. whomever!), so you don't have to worry your poor self about actually figuring out what your child should partake in? --Golbez (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a long list of examples, had you just stopped at breakfast cereals, none of us would have caught on. As to where in Wikipedia's policies it says it's a guide to parenting, that would be right next to where it says it's a guide to obscure historical politicians. And this is where - having given that one example to prove a point - I do not now give more. Alexandria177 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, if you are going to open the argument that Wikipedia (and not somewhere perhaps more suited for it, at the very least Wikibooks?) is going to be a guide to parenting, then why stop at this one list of potentially harmful material? --Golbez (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is pretty perverse. If I saw my kid reading The Turner Diaries, I wouldn't come to Wikipedia and look for 'List of racist literature', I'd search 'The Turner Diaries; in my google search box, or simply read the preface or the first chapter. Yes, we need to have a sex-offenders register so we know exactly where they are, and can make sure they aren't anywhere near our children, but Wikipedia doesn't have such a list because few of these pervs would be notable. In the same way, I fail to see why we would need a list for that small handful of kiddie-pron that would qualify for that list, assuming of course we had reliable sources to determine they meet the criteria defined, which we don't. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, your arguments are two. One, that you know how to google things better than other parents, and they should call you if they have any questions. And two, in spite of the list having notable authors on it, you feel that as it has minor authors and needs some work that the whole of it should be thrown out. I disagree. But I like that you mention the problem of having some discernible and objective criteria for evaluating these things. That's the best "against" argument I've heard yet, but frankly, that just tells me we need to develop such, not throw the list out. Alexandria177 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even more self-defeating, this list is so disorganised and its criteria for inclusion so zany, that who could trust it as a parent, a school-teacher, a social worker, a child psychologist, or a librarian? No one. It is, in the end, a low-quality page, and deserves to be deleted for that reason alone, aside from the other issues. I say again, the only titles worthy of a pixel are already listed under much more useful categories and lists. No purpose is served by retaining it. Tony (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem with the list - again - is that it simply needs clean up, better organization and established guidelines. Agreed. We should do that. But we cannot if the list does not exist. Alexandria177 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
their argument seems to be essentially arguing for outright abandonment of NOT CENSORED, in favor of removing lists of books that talk about disfavored subjects--in case somebody might possibly use the list to search for books to read for titillation on the forbidden subject. As obviously Wikipedia is not going to accept that if stated right out, the way Tony does, they suggest giving them the least possible coverage, by only having categories--a total red herring, as there is no argument whatever for a category being more appropriate than a list, here or anywhere else. f there is a category of things that can be listed, there should always be a list if there is interest in maintaining one. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turning it around, there is no argument whatever for a list being more appropriate than a category, here or anywhere else. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gwen Gale and WP:OVERCAT. This is a WP:COATRACK for grouping books by incidents within them thus giving undue weight to the incident depicted. The LOC listing is not "portraying pedophilia" but simply "pedophilia" and I doubt most of these books are there or vice versa. The lead paragraph is not a lead at all but an WP:OR excuse to group the books so as to create the WP:UNDUE weight. Redemption of such a title phrase by any of the methods suggested by the keep group is doomed to being over powered by the cruft supermagnetism and thus ... unwise, considering 3 million other options. Salt the redirect and put the categories on notice too. Finally and conclusively, there are no sources whatsoever in the article suggesting that the topic "list of books portraying blah" is WP:NOTABLE. JJB 06:38, 24 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors&oldid=1142648649"