Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disseminating pornography to a minor


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  22:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disseminating pornography to a minor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom. I deleted this as an uncontested prod, but the author has requested it be restored. I personally don't think the article as it currently stands is viable (although it is a viable topic), as it consists solely of an unreferenced and inappropriate dictionary definition and an unrelated paragraph about movie classification in the UK. –  iride scent  12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep. The offense of providing pornography to a minor is a statutory offense under multiple jurisdictions in the English speaking world.  Since there are multiple jurisdictions, there are going to be many variations in the wording and name of the crime.  For instance, in Indiana, it's IC 35-49-3-3, "Dissemination of matter or conducting performance harmful to minors".  (The glib assumption that pornography is "harmful" annoys, dinnit?)  At any rate, all of these similar statutes deserve an article, and there probably ought to be one that covers them all.  There may well be a merger candidate out there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because no valid grounds for deletion are cited. The criticisms given by nom are grounds to improve the article, not delete it.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Did you even read the nom? Specifically, where it says "procedural"? I make no arguments for or against deletion. The original prod argument was here, although it appears to have been a boilerplate template. –  iride scent  18:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure about the title, but there's the seed of a fascinating (and important) article here on the general phenomenon of laws which prohibit dissemination of media in general to minors - not just pornography. I am not a legal scholar and thus don't have much to contribute, but I'm sure there are others who could add on to this. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge as per Risker below . agree the title is ungainly, but the subject matter is certainly notable. can'tt hink of any obvious merge candidates, though I would be open to one if someone came up with a good plan, but I do think there is enough verifiable information out there to make a substantial article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of pornography laws by country. Separate article is not required; in fact, the material is already largely covered in the latter article, and more completely. Risker (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, Pornography in the United States could be a viable target. PhilKnight (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge - unsourced, appears to be not notable. If the keep voters consider this is a notable subject, they should have no difficulty in adding multiple citations to reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2008 (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.