Stigma of pedophilia : – Joe ( talk ) 07:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Sexuality and gender ,  and Social science .  – Joe ( talk ) 07:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no redirect - POVFORK created by a blocked SPA.  Not a plausible-enough search term for a redirect.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree that this is a redundant fork of Pedophilia#Society and culture .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 07:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is a mish-mash of various themes related to pedophilia, and effectively amounts to WP:SYNTH .  It also seems a bit POV-forky over issues already covered in various other articles.  Boing! said Zebedee ( talk ) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll just add that I do think an article on this subject could be justified on notability grounds.  I just don't think this is it, due to its one-sided POV synthesis.  Boing! said Zebedee ( talk ) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect seems fine, I don't see the need for further explanation of this topic.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete POV fork for the worst possible POV Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep .  The topic of this article is well-sourced, and has obvious notability within the literature.  There exists a construct and subsequently a stigma of pedophilia (see my comments on Talk).  While not fully divisible , the construct and stigma of pedophilia clearly interact with one another, and so they must both have their own notability.  These multiple AfDs appear to be part of a systematic attack and opinion canvassing operation against the creator of the Minor-attracted person article, which unambiguously referred to the topic (acknowledging the considerable controversy surrounding it) rather than mobilizing it.  Wikipedia is not censored, and is driven by notability and mentions of a topic in reliable sources.  I'd also like to suggest that some admin further up has a good look into what is happening at certain bulletin boards, and whether it violates existing policy.  -- 86 Sedan 09:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) - (pro-pedophilia account blocked).  ValarianB ( talk ) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This AfD is a follow-up to the discussion that led to the creator's block at WP:ANI#Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll .  It's completely routine to review the wider editing of a user blocked for distorting content, for obvious reasons.  – Joe ( talk ) 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I must agree with Sedan, I find the targeting of these pages and the banning of the creator quite disturbing.  This weaponization of fear is the exact thing this article talks about.  Legitimate topics being suppressed.  -- Pokelova ( talk ) 10:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for reasons stated above.  Casdmo ( talk ) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep .  There is heaps of research about the social stigma of pedophilia and how it negatively affects child sexual abuse prevention and affected individuals mental health.  Pedophilia has been described as "one of the most stigmatized human characteristics" (Maroño & Bartels, 2020).  There is clearly enough information on the topic for there to be an article.  Many researchers in relevant fields believe that while it's absolutely necessary to stigmatize the act of child sexual abuse, stigmatizing the attraction itself is counterproductive.  Observer42436 ( talk ) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) - blocked for pro-pedophilia advocacy) ValarianB ( talk ) 14:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with Hemiauchenia, this is better handled at Pedophilia#Society and culture .  -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per WP:NOPAGE this aspect of pedophilia is better handled in the parent article.  Breaking off 'stigma' to treat in isolation in a standalone article is intrinsically WP:POVFORKy .  Bon courage ( talk ) 11:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I agree with ActivelyDisinterested and Bon courage that it's better handled at the main article.  DFlhb ( talk ) 12:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the Wikipedia had a problem over a decade ago with now-long-banned editors working to soften pedophile-related articles, it is sad to see this advocacy creeping up again.  any stigma attached to child-rape is deserved, it does not justify a separate article to champion its cause.  ValarianB ( talk ) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is not about stigma of child rape, Valarian, and I think deep down you know that.  Intellectually you understand the distinction.  It's giving performative.  -- Pokelova ( talk ) 13:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] you are straying into the territory of the blocked SPAs. I'd advise caution. ValarianB ( talk ) 13:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The distinction between pedophilia and child rape is obvious to anyone with a dictionary. It would take incredible bad faith to construe that as advocacy of any kind, though I guess I wouldn't be surprised if that happened given how disgustingly this whole situation has played out. Well, if anything they certainly can't accuse me of being a SPA. -- Pokelova ( talk ) 14:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the distinction is about as meaningful as choosing between being shot or stabbed.  you are picking the wrong horse in this race.  ValarianB ( talk ) 12:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  Let me hear that again.  The distinction between pedophilia and CSA is as meaningful as between being shot and stabbed?  You can't seriously think it's right to equate the trauma of child rape victims to the ickiness of pedophilic desire itself.  If you did, then how would you even be able to justify basic measures such as background checks for childminders?  The pedophile is already a pedophile, so nothing can make the situation worse, according to you.  I'm not here to defend the article, but your insulting language towards Pokelova should be withdrawn in light of the nonsensicality of your associated arguments.  small jars t c 00:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As a WP:POVFORK .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clearly a WP:POVFORK with ulterior motives.  Legitimus ( talk ) 13:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Obvious POVFORK by someone who has an obvious POV.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:POVFORK .  I'm sad that this was created.  Scorpions13256 ( talk ) 19:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks, walks, and quacks like a WP:POVFORK .  Even if the motive behind creating it were pure as the driven snow, it is redundant with the article of broader scope , and having both around just makes maintenance more difficult.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] strongest delete possible .  literal pedophilic trolling.  lettherebedarklight 晚安 03:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:POVFORK.  Johnuniq ( talk ) 03:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete POVFORK trash.  Really hope we don't need to salt, but I'd support that if re-created.  Nate • ( chatter ) 04:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For all of the reasons laid out above.  OgamD218 ( talk ) 10:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For ALL of the above reasons.  Equine-man ( talk ) 16:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no difference here between this and stigma of copraphilia.  No article there.  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I must admit that this one is inherently WP:UNDUE .  There's no way we could ever make anything good out of this article because the choice of topic has an unacceptable impicit premise.  small jars t c 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Looks like an AVALANCHE in here with only a single established editor ! voting keep, who doesn't cite any policy and goes on a mini-polemic about the delete ! voters (not counting the long-dormant account which appeared alongside the other SPAs which are now blocked).  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete