Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jailbait (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Jailbait
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POVFORK from Age of consent Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sub-section at Age of consent about jailbait images was boldly cut and pasted from its original location at the jailbait article, by a user who knew very well from the previous discussion on the jailbait talk page that their action would be contested. Since the information was originally at the jailbait article, wouldn't the sub-section at 'Age of consent' be considered the POVFORK? In either case, the POVFORK material is only part of the article; even without all the material regarding jailbait images this article still has enough information and references to stand on its own. POVFORK is insufficient justification to nominate this article for deletion, no matter which way you look at it. Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough content for a stand alone article. To be a POV fork, there would have to be a POV which is not the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the reasons I stated at Talk:Jailbait and at Talk:Jailbait (disambiguation) about the topic of jailbait being capable of being a valid Wikipedia article. Its existence is not a content fork. The topics of age of consent and jailbait are distinct topics. Not everyone under the age of consent can be considered jailbait; for example, a 12-year-old is not normally considered jailbait; this is because a 12-year-old looks like a child (usually anyway) and is nowhere close to looking adult enough to sexually tempt an adult (at least when it comes to adults who are sexually attracted to adults and have no sexual interest in prepubescents or pubescents). This is in contrast to a 17-year-old, who is post-pubescent (has already achieved an adult body) and is one year away from being a legal adult -- age 18. As we know, age 18 is the age of majority in the vast majority of countries. Something about the age of majority should be mentioned in the Jailbait article, as well as what age range is not normally considered jailbait (if WP:Reliable sources for that exist). Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore: In rare cases, a person can be a legal adult but under the age of consent. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * COMMENT The persistent problem is the insistence that this is the place to put material on images of allegedly underage women. I was the one who moved all the material to "age of consent", and I did it precisely because the legal issues were the focus of controversy. Stupidly at the same time I created the redirect at Jailbait images, which prevented me from dealing with the issue through a move, and at the moment I'm reluctant to do a cut-and-paste at this point, but I do think that the material needs to go elsewhere, and that the shared name element is not enough to force it to be part of this article-which-should-be-a-redirect. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * keep seems notable enough. I'd suggest that images be left out (google will help those in need of such images). The article itself needs work, I see a lot of references to Gawker and Jezebel and Vice - we should and can do better, I'd suggest we trim the article to focus on what high quality sources say about this rather sensitive topic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenobi, the vast majority of the sources in the article, before Mangoe's split of the article today, were about jailbait images; you won't find many scholarly sources (which is what I think you mean by "high quality sources") discussing the topic of jailbait images (and I mean specifically credited as jailbait images in the sources, not sources that simply discuss sexualized pictures of minors). And there was only one "jailbait" image in the article, which, as noted here, was removed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable as a neologism, per above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Pretty notable term. I dislike how the article is structured. It appears the lead is serving less as a summary of the article, but a section in and of itself. I suggest reworking it, but aside from that, I think the article should stay. Bali88 (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, sustained amount of secondary source coverage over time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * redirect to jailbait (disambiguation) Now that the dust has (at least temporarily) settled and the images have their own article, what's left simply duplicates material in age of consent. Given the unwillingness to get rid of the disambiguation it must become the target. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The only reason the images have their own article is because once again, you acted without the consensus of the talk page and made an edit that you knew would be contested. You have still not replied to questions specifically for you regarding your contested edit at both Talk:Jailbait and Talk:Jailbait. Freikorp (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as is a notable neologism. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Dictionary definition of a neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2014 (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.