Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of laws regarding child pornography


 * 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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of laws regarding child pornography

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a POV fork of Laws regarding child pornography. The intent is to promote the fringe arguments against child pornography laws, see User:Tisane/Strategies for effectively purveying minority and fringe opinions on Wikipedia, in which the article's author (now banned by ArbCom) states that: "Many Wikipedians, myself included, are purveyors of minority, or even fringe opinions ... As a purveyor of minority opinions, you want to raise readers' awareness of certain ideas by editing the encyclopedia, or you wouldn't be here. Articles with a broad scope tend to get a lot of readership. Therefore, it often useful (from the purveyor's point of view) to include the minority opinion in those articles, or at least link those broadly-scoped articles to an article about the minority opinion ... An example would be a situation that occurred with the child pornography article. I added a section on "Proposed legalization" (a decidedly fringe public policy proposal) that included a description of the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint on the subject. The content on those anarcho-capitalist views was trimmed to one sentence by another editor concerned about undue weight, so I changed it to a see also to libertarian perspectives on child pornography. But then the whole "Proposed legalization" section of the child pornography article was removed. So, I retreated still further and just put a link in the See also section of the child pornography article to criticism of child pornography laws. This article, in turn, includes a see also to libertarian perspectives on child pornography. So, in a very indirect way, the full content that was removed is still readily accessible to a reader of the main article on child pornography, but the editors concerned with undue weight have evidently been satisfied." This is thinly veiled pro-child porn propaganda. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm with Fences; this is a POV fork. These "criticisms of" articles usually are (and like this one they are usually based on primary sources), and a brief account of a minor discussion between candidates for political office does not establish that this is a useful or important topic. Whatever relevant sourced content there is (the final two paragraphs, for instance) can easily be placed elsewhere--if it didn't come from elsewhere to begin with. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear POV-driven content fork. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree this looks like a fork to put across some views.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to main article. Worthwhile to preserve history. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per jackaroe. i was assuming good faith on the part of the article creator, but im going to respect jackaroes experience on the subject a little more. Merge to main article, Laws regarding child pornography. all laws have critics. "criticism of..." articles are generally for larger controversies. This is potentially large, but the current article can easily fit in the main article without any undue weight issues. And, may i point out that the main article is NOT about "overly restrictive" laws, but about the laws in general, broad or narrow. all this content can be placed there without a "criticism" section. if a country is proposing less stringent laws, thats normal content for the article, not a "critique" of the idea, as if child porn laws are inherently wrong (THATS pure pov pushing for sure, as most people agree we need some laws protecting children)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do not merge. This POV fork was created by the user after he tried to insert that info into the main article on Child pornography, and it was removed as fringe content, according to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE.  It appears from the history that the creation of the POV fork was part of his program to get around the policies, as he expressed in the essay linked in the nominator's presentation of this AfD.  None of the info in the POV fork should be merged into the main article or any other article without verification, because at least some of it was previously found to misinterpret the sources, which is one of the reasons it was removed when it was first added to the main article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Drmies. Tabercil (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 18 August 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.