Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults


 * 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. There seems to be fairly clear consensus that this article is inappropriate, primarily because of the vagueness of its title, which doesn't (from what the commentators here have indicated) line up with any system of categorisation used anywhere else in the world. As such, there are some serious notability concerns (and yes, lists also have to pass notability). If someone wishes to recreate the article, with clear indications on how this topic is notable and/or in line with actual systems of literary classification, they are welcome to. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The page contains only original research and facts can't be verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negativecharge (talk • contribs)
 * Huh? It only contains a list of book titles. What original research or facts are you referring to?   Will Beback    talk    05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the fact of inclusion would constitute original research; each entry should have a reliable source saying "Boox XYZ portrays sexual relations between minors and adults", and if not should be removed. If an editor reads a book and says to himself "Hmmm, this book portrays sexual relations between minors and adults, I think I'll add it to the list" this would be allowable iff it is prima facie uncontestably and incontravertibly true. However, the concepts "portray", "sexual relations", and "minor" can be slippery especially when one is dealing with a work of fiction, so few books would meet this criterion, probably, except for works of explicit pornography. Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - The list has sources, so I don't think there is any original research going on here. If you want to verify the information, go read the book.  On the other hand, I'm not sure why a list of books which portray pedophilia is notable.  Seems kind of random to me (like List of books portraying empty coffee cups), but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 16:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted above "If you want to verify the information, go read the book" is not the Wikipedia way. "If you want to verify the information, go find another person who has read the book" and published his comment in a reliable source is the Wikipedia way. 02:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are taking 'no original research' too far. If i have a photo of the celebrity, i say "this is the photo of this celebrity, if you don't believe me, look at the photo". I do not go and find somebody publishing an academic paper on the fact that this celebrity is shown in this specific photograph. Beta M (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - because it's a list of random titles, which could be way out of date and not accurate, and not really a topic of any importance. There could be millions of "X that portrays Y in Z country" which are plain junk. Negativecharge (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Conflates too many separate topics: books where the person would be considered underage now but an adult in the period when the book was written (I presume this is the reason for including Dido, Queen of Carthage, which I haven't read), books about child molestation and pedophilia, books that probably wouldn't be listed if the relationship was consensual rather than rape (Speak (novel), in which a high school senior rapes a freshman), books where the topic doesn't appear to be a significant element in the plot, pederastic literature, and still others. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most entries are notable in their own right but don't necessarily serve as classical examples of the topic.  If anything, something more along the lines of "Sexual abuse of minors in literature" might make for a more helpful - if difficult to write - article. Several Times (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And as it turns out, the extensive AfD discussion on Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction seems to cover the remaining qualms. Several Times (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting situation. This is the fourth time this list has been to AfD. What have we learned so far? That this list is controversial. That some people see a value in it, and others don't, but there's no clear consensus. That the list itself has been problematic and continues to be despite four AfDs. There has long been a concern about the Original Research aspect of the list, and that concern is valid. What books should be on the list, and how are they to be identified? Using the books themselves as evidence is unsatisfactory and is against policy. Sometimes there are no bright lines. Should Romeo and Juliet be included as most scholars agree that Juliet is 13 and that Romeo is between 16 and 18. No. Because 16 is today not regarded as "adult" while at the time of the play 13 was not considered a "minor". The parameters of the list are poorly defined and open to interpretation and disagreement. There have been some plausible arguments put forward that the list is a useful research tool, but as has been pointed out in the various discussions, the books are fairly random, and the scope too wide and poorly defined to be of much use to anyone looking into whatever it is that people might be researching. The list is apparently intended to include all sorts of books and all manner of relationships, so it is not clear what the subject might be, though "paedophilia in literature" seems favourite. I suspect that a list of major and significant literary works dealing with paedophilia would be useful, and the best place to start such a list would be Pedophilia, and it might be better if the section dealt with the literary works in extended prose rather than simply listing them. A list is unhelpful and tells the reader little. It might also be useful to have a separate list of papers on research into the topic - a further reading section appended to the end of Pedophilia - though ideally the information in those papers would be summarised and contained within the Pedophilia article. The subject of "paedophilia in literature" is viable - there is a notable paper by Elizabeth Freeman which appeared in American Literature: "Honeymoon with a Stranger: Pedophiliac Picaresques from Poe to Nabokov" so a simple delete is probably not the most appropriate solution to this issue. I suggest a clean up. Remove all the unsourced books. Clearly define the parameters, and use reliable sources on the topic to build a prose article on "paedophilia in literature". In fact, rename the article Paedophilia in literature, and perhaps merge contents and redirect to Pedophilia.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per SilkTork's excellent exposition above. He made it as a comment rather than as a specific suggestion to Keep, but it's pretty clear that's his intent. The subject is pretty clearly notable, and the subject is unquestionably controversial, which pretty much assures us of 20 straight No Consensus challenges if we all stick around long enough. Fix what needs to be fixed (specifying the inclusion criteria and requiring sourcing) and move along... Carrite (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * keep yes it conflates several KINDS of sexual relationship between children and adults into one list. But attempting to draw distinctions would be original research.  This is a notable topic, if controversial. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * delete i agree with Roscelese, plus pages about pedophiles are awful. Big Skeleton (Big Skeleton —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC).


 * delete - Listed many times in order to be deleted, it's clear that most people consider this list to be of little use. Juan Aubrie (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete''' because i agree with Several Times above. Gomi Reseau (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * delete - there's not much to be fixed or salvaged. The community has considered, sometime in the past, other similar pages ("list of X portraying relations with adults and children") to be unfit to be included in an encyclopedia. Johnny the Rebel (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that the topic has received "significant-enough attention by the world at large", as is shown by the Library of Congress categories in the references.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the page is irrelevant for any respectable encyclopedia that deserves to be called as such. Man of the Middle Eastern Conflict (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The following three participants in this AFD have been ✅ as sock puppets of each other and of an indefinitely blocked user (and hence have been blocked accordingly):

–MuZemike 07:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ...also ✅ and blocked is, who exhibits the same MO and everything. –MuZemike 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have taken the liberty of striking the comments of blocked socks above. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roscelese. -cc 20:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that the list is highly problematic in that it arbitrarily conflates a variety of types of relationships and historical cultural standards, resulting in a list that is at best a conglomeration of unrelated stuff (tantamount to List of books containing characters with red hair), and at worst quite misleading in suggesting that all of the depicted relationships are immoral or illegitimate. There's room for an article (or list) on sexual exploitation of minors in fiction, but this is not that article. If this were TV Tropes, I'd call it People Sit On Chairs. Dcoetzee 04:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've relisted this for a third week, because we need to get a little deeper discussion, without the disruptive sockpuppetry. This AFD is now semi-protected. Courcelles 04:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete; SilkTork's excellent comment was given as a reason to support above, but I'm going to take the opposite tack; it shows that what constitutes adulthood varies too much over culture and history, and given the hypercharged atmosphere as relates to such relationships in our society, it opens up too many cans of worms for an article that is close to being an indiscriminate list anyway. Kansan (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I don't think that "hypercharged atmosphere" should be taken into the account when making the decisions on whether to delete an article or not. That would cause articles on most political, religious, environmental, etc. topics to be deleted. Beta M (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It should never be the overriding or even a major factor - you are right in that. I only mention it here as any claim to notability would be extremely weak as to make a "keep" stance tenuous, and it simply constitutes a factor as to why I do not feel the status quo should receive the benefit of the doubt. Kansan (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * delete. Basically per Dcoetzee. Unlike Carrite, I'd also say SilkTork's comment if anything leans toward merge if not delete. There's a lot of issues with this article that can't be resolved without basically starting again with a better defined focus. sonia ♫  04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well referenced list which deserves its place on Wikipedia. While it may appear that a category can serve a better purpose, it may distract the reader of the article if this is the only category (thus giving it undue weight) and also would be impossible to do with the books for which there are no articles. Beta M (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to project space pending a split. While it is clear that there are some notable topics in this area, and Silk Tork's comments outline how one or more clearly defined lists would be encyclopaedic this list is just too vague to be useful in the main space. Once it has been agreed what the scope of the new list(s) will be, then entries here can be moved if they meet the inclusion criteria. It can then be deleted, Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability problems. The earth is not flat. Maybe there are a lot of so-called relationships of this type, but only a microscopic segment of society openly celebrate it. - BE  TA  19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bentheadvocate. Difluoroethene (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. AS I've repeatedly argued on the article talk page, inclusion on this list can be based on nothing but WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete notability problems and vagueness. Minor under whose law and what definition? Does it extend back into ancient times before it was distinguished the way it is now? Why? Seems open to original research and endless bickering. Wikipedia is made to cover settled areas of knowledge, not to create articles where we figure it out by ourselves. Dzlife (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is made to cover settled areas of knowledge" half the articles would disappear if we apply this rule. And of course what is 'settled'? I agree that as the article stands now there are issues. The main one is that the title is a bit confusing, but that is because people keep insisting on moving it from more reasonable to the less so titles. Beta M (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Expanding on the basis of my !vote, looking at the references on the article shows:
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse-Fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child molesters-Fiction
 * National Library of Canada Cataloging in Publications Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse-Juvenile fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Sexual abuse victims-Fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Adult child sexual abuse victims-Fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child Abuse-Fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Pedophilia-Fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child Molesters-Fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse by teachers-Fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Sexually abused children-Fiction
 * Library of Congress Subject Heading: Incest-Fiction
 * None of these subject headings cover the title of this article. I conclude that the world at large does not consider this topic notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the fact that Library of Congress does not classify books by the title of the article doesn't make it non-notable. I am sure there is no "Subject Heading: Goose Harbour Lake", however, there may be something in the library of congress which deals with that lake. In fact the fact that there are so many books in the LoC probably shows the exact opposite of your irrational conclusion. Beta M (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on my limited knowledge of logic...I agree that the process of induction is not a form of proof, and that I have not proven that the topic is non-notable. However, I have induced that the topic is non-notable.  Claiming that this conclusion is "irrational", without evidence, seems to be a logical fallacy called proof by assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, all you've done is shown that the Library of Congress (one of many classification schemes) doesn't use this title to group works of fiction. It doesn't show, prove or induce anything about the topic at all. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also showing that the topic is not referenced by the sources in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are showing the title isn't. The inclusion criteria are apparently "any of {1, 2, 3}" where 1, 2 and 3 are the subject headings you note above. When we have a grouping of notable topics we have to determine whether the grouping is appropriate or not, but even if it isn't it doesn't mean that the topic is not notable. In this case, I don't think the grouping is appropriate because it's too loose, however this is because it's too difficult to determine what is and isn't included. It is not shown by your list. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2011 (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.