Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child-on-child sexual abuse


 * 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 Keep per consensus (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Child-on-child sexual abuse
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like original research and is entirely unnotable as a subject anyway. Any exploration of this issue should be at child sexual abuse. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I can't comment on original research right away, but the subject - disgusting though it is - is real and does happen, so I don't get what would make it entirely unnotable. --Kizor (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not notable enough for its own article. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? The references section cites academic articles and a 137-page dissertation. Since this is significantly different from acts of pedophilia, I don't reject the possibility of it working better in its own article out of hand. Much of, say, psychological data on one would be inapplicable with the other - and mergers aren't an AfD issue, anyway. As for original research, the article has multiple references that appear to cover most of the important statements, and some of the others are definitionally true. --Kizor (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Its the concept that is not notable. I mean who has heard of "Child-on-child sexual abuse"? Which is why the article is original research. We should not just go around creating concepts and then creating articles based on that. Thanks, SqueakBox
 * Comment "I haven't heard of it, therefore it's not notable" - are encyclopedias only for things you already know? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is slightly more complicated than that and really depends on our individual attitudes towards articles generally, for me this is just a fork and can be treated perfectly well at CSA and any similar forky concept, regardless of the subject matter, would be treated in the same way by me. Endless forking does not help our project or our coverage of one single topic. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a fork, any more than an article on England would be a fork of Britain. Sadly there are plenty of cases and discussion of this topic. Nick mallory (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep though a strange concept at first glance, sadly the numerous academic refs show it to be real. This phenomenon exists and is notable. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets the notability standards by referencing several independent reliable sources. —Scott5114↗ 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Pol64 (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you elaborate? Legitimus 17:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that as the nominator I was not clear in my reasoning as I can't think of any other explanation for this comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he's asking Pol64 to elaborate. AfD isn't a vote, and simply saying "delete per nom" is usually ignored by the closing admin. All arguments are weighed up, instead of simple vote counting. I don't think there's any aspersion cast on your input, rather that he's asking Pol64 to put up an argument instead of a hand. Totnesmartin 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In many issues where lots of opinions are expressed to say one agrees with another opinion is in no way an excuse for someone with the opposing opinion to say that the opinion they oppose does not count. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright Alright, don't put words in my mouth...keyboard...whatever. I wasn't undermining or saying it does not count. I was hoping for another take and/or wording of your position, the user's feelings, why he/she agrees with you.  You have stated you opinion and its reasons, I have stated mine (below) and these other folks have stated theirs.  If he/she does not want to elaborate, that's ok.  Legitimus 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The CSA article specifies adult with minor, making this a different concept, though similar.  I would also contend that because people have not heard of it despite it's obvious existence in medical literature, it makes for an greater reason to keep it, as a public service.  Many people have never heard of Lymphangioleiomyomatosis either, but it is certainly notable. Legitimus (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - If it has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as shown in the references given, then it is notable. Subdolous (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Psychologically there can be other issues behind it, so the article may be added onto from here.  Notable offshoot of sexual abuse - though statistically rare. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment an 11-yo girl was raped by 8- and 9-yo boys recently.. so it does happen. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not look like OR and is referenced.  Looks like it could fly if allowed to grow wings (AfD'ed after 2 days of life?).  This disturbing occurrence may seem like an anathema to some people's world views, but it does happen and is notable as the comment above illustrates.  Also, Keep as per Legitimus's comment about the heavy Adult -> Minor focus of the parent article. kitsune361 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to the professional literature sexual assault and coercion between minors is relatively common. While there are obviously a number of shortcomings with the article at this early stage of it's conception, I think that it can be improved and expanded significantly with time. Albert Wincentz 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep or Merge with Redirect to child sexual abuse -- It would seem that child-on-child sexual abuse would fit as well under child sexual abuse as adult-child sexual abuse. Limiting the CSA article to adult-child only doesn't match the scope stated by the article title.  However, this article seems to cover a  notable topic and cites reliable sources for verification.  My first instinct would be to keep, since we're not in danger of running out of electrons, but I could see merging, as long as the content were to be preserved.
 * Also informing my decision is the fact that the nominator has made no attempt to edit the article or discuss his concerns at its talk page. It's certainly within policy to only nominate for deletion, but it doesn't seem well in keeping with the idea of improving content by editing.  I'd like to see the article, if kept, significantly expanded and focused more on its topic than on explaining child-child sexual abuse as a consequence of adult-child sexual abuse, to differentiate it from the CSA article (as written).   So far, it appears that this AfD is headed into the snow.  --Ssbohio 06:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I hope this is rare, but the fact that four articles are cited means that this article cannot be dismissed as WP:OR. The article speaks of pre-pubescent abuse, whereas the main Child sex abuse article speaks ofadult on child abuse.  Where does abuse by a pubescent youth on a (pre-pubescent) child get dealt with?  Peterkingiron 23:28, 3 December 2007 (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.