Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

message: This AfD is currently undergoing a deletion review, which can be found here... ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

message: Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.</span>
*STRONG KEEP Comment Adult-child sex is the term preferred today by David Finkelhor, most-quoted North-American scientific authority on CSA research since three decades. Not only is it annoying that this article keeps getting new propositions to delete/merge/redirect pretty much any other day where the people doing so obviously never learn, even constantly trying to do so without any consensus or even without polls, so it's no surpise the article currenty looks the way it does, this topic is just too distinct from other existing articles such as CSA, Age of Consent, paedophilia, child sexuality, or others. It's clearly distinct from Age of Consent because that's nothing but a mostly entirely arbitrary line beyond any actual link to age-structurized attractions such as nepiophilia, paedophilia, ephebophilia, and has also certainly no link to any biological or mental developing processes, that some jurisdictions draw because of cultural, aka moral, issues. It's clearly distinct from paedophilia because that only concerns the attraction of an adult, which according to all legitimate available empiric peer-reviewed studies and statistics (of which I can quote you many) is the least probable cause for Adult-child sex while 97-99 percent of cases are clearly situational offences (lack of availability of an adult partner, social incompetence, curiosity, decreased inhibition or inability to tell the difference such as because of drugs) or due to sadism. It's clearly distinct from child sexuality because attraction towards adults is only one of many within polymorphous-perverse sexuality of children, if any. And it's clearly distinct from CSA that's mostly a very recent legal, and moral, interpretation or construct. In our former polls, one person also made a distinction in that they saw a difference between a behavior and one of its potential outcomes which they called abuse aka mental harm. This is (or at least it's supposed to be, if we'd be getting anywhere instead of constant edit warring) an anthropological, ethological, and biosocial article about a specific form of what to empiric, multi-disciplinarian, peer-reviewed scientific studies (which I can also quote at a high number, while of course nobody claims that's what the majority of cases would be like) seems often mutually enjoyed and agreed upon behavior that is observed on any social level in society, in any era of human history, in any human culture known to mankind, and in most higher vertebrate species on this planet. Even though many legal bans have been put up against this behavior in the history of the West since kurganization, and the behavior increasingly since the Age of Enlightenment inherited the numinous status of ethnocentrically most condescended and feared sexuality from same-sex activities, the ethnocentric and chronocentric label of CSA is entirely alien and unkown to most of those situations.--TlatoSMD (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion 3

message: Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.</span>
After about one day, there have been many votes and arguments put forward, but with a lack of consensus.
The current voting stands at 18 to keep and 21 to delete the article or at least redirect. No one has voted to merge. GrooV (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this not a vote, but a discussion and that decisions are made not based on the number of "votes," but on the merits of the arguments weighed along with Wiki policies. --Strothra (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its truer to say that the decision isn't entirely based on vote counting but it most certainly is included, if it were entirely based on "the merits of the arguments weighed along with Wiki policies" I seriously doubt the article would be here right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that's a funny spin on the issue, to say that the votes to keep any ACS related issue would flatter the policy justifications. One would think that with the general hysteria in society and all the hushing up over research papers, it would be much the opposite. GrooV (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of us have discussed merging/redirecting, depending on if there's anything in the article worth keeping.  Oh another place where some of the article's content is already discussed is Animal_sexuality#Sex_between_adults_and_juveniles Merkinsmum 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Mostly already merged... just a comment --  most of the info from this article was merged into child sexual abuse on approximately January 7 by another editor, as part of the prior redirect.  Although the redirect was reverted, the merged material was not removed from the other article, as far as I know.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *AFD is not a vote. A majority of one does not actually imply consensus - in fact it implies a complete absence of it, as users are split on what to do. We don't promote admins with majority+1. Orderinchaos 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I made it clear in the nomination that I don't oppose merging and redirecting, indeed for me it would be an acceptable solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion 4

message: Is it just me, or has the structure and purpose of this AfD gotten very confusing all of a sudden? Comments are being moved all over the place, some commentary is being deemed inappropriate for the main AfD page and is thus relocated out-of-order to the Talk Page, and statements are getting put into a number of collapsible menus. Why all this pointless moving of commentary? I've seen AfD pages longer than this one, so what's so special here? Furthermore, the header at the top explicitly says that this AfD is for discussing whether or not the article "Adult-child sex" is appropriate for Wikipedia. If this is true, why is there a statement (also near the top) that informs everyone that this page is for discussing the deletion nomination, and not the article's content, and that "inappropriate" commentary will be moved to the Talk Page? Isn't the content directly relevant to why an article should remain or be deleted? For instance, one comment of mine was a direct response to the assertion that ACS is a POV fork and that it should be deleted on those grounds. How come the initial comment making that assertion remained on the main AfD page, and my comment got moved here? In fact, I'm not following the logic behind moving any comments to this Talk Page. As such, I'm moving my comment back to the main page, and asking others not to move it back here without good reason. I honestly don't think there's a need to move any comments here, unless something is really inappropriate. But then, if that's the case, commentary like that is usually either deleted or moved elsewhere. The thing is that this AfD is becoming almost impossible to follow, with all the needless and confusing relocation of information and responses. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever were the motivations, I agree that this is getting very hard to follow with all the moving stuff around. While content is certainly an issue also in AfD discussions, I can see that bringing hard, sourced data and quoting sophisticated reasonings results in long posts, which is why many of my posts were moved here. In any way, I'd feel better about this if the mainpage of the AfD would receive a message at the top that any closing admin(s) should also consider "all those posts moved to the talkpage for their longevity". --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As long as actual votes and the arguments that accompany them aren't being tampered with (and I don't believe that has happened) then IMO it is fine to be moving stuff not directly involved to talk. I am sure the closing admin will read it all and it isn't that unusual for this to happen on disputed afds, indeed isn't that why project pages have talk pages. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems all in order to me - it assists the process to have discussion occur outside the venue, and the project talk page for the AfD is the best location for that. Orderinchaos 18:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is going on with this AfD?

message: I really don't envy the admin who has the job of closing this AFD. After posting my comment, I read through the others, and they seem to be divided exactly 50-50 between Keep and Delete messages. Under such circumstances, I have a horrible feeling that a result of no consensus is inevitable; but equally inevitably, that just means we'll be returning to this topic in three to six months' time, and having all the same arguments all over again. That's going to carry on until there's a clear, policy-based consensus to support one outcome: keeping or deletion, and I just can't see that happening any time soon.
It took GNAA 14 AFD nominations, if I recall, before it was finally deleted. I really hope this article doesn't end up breaking that record; but I wouldn't be altogether surprised. Terraxos (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't surprise me if it was AfD'd in even less time than that. It almost seems to me like there are some people who won't even sleep until they get this thing deleted. I think it's sad that someone would be willing to nominate an article up to 14 times to get it deleted. The only thing that tells me is that 13 out of 14 times it was voted to be kept and 1 out of the 14 times it was voted to be deleted. So because the delete vote was the last one then that's the one that counts? That's not right. Ospinad (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a few thoughts...