Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents


 * 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 no consensus (kept by default). See Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents - Nabla (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

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

wikipedia is not a directory PetraSchelm (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Wikipedia has thousands of 'List' articles Portal:Contents/Lists_of_topics so I cannot understand the rationale for wanting to delete this article. The talk page demonstrates a strong consensus that this article, under its new title, is an important contribution to Wikipedia knowledge.Tony (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Tony
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Nominator fails to give a good reason for deletion; this is a perfectly discriminate list in accordance with policy.  Celarnor Talk to me  14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Firstly, from "What Wikipedia is Not": "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories."  Second, the title of this list is blaringly biased agenda-pushing.  If you read through the list, most of the films depict child sexual abuse, not "sexual attraction to children or adolescents."  The weak caveat that some of the films may depict child sexual abuse does not match the contents of the list.  The one-sided agenda of title of the article begs the reason for this list at all--it's just a wank list for pedophiles; it is not a culturally significant phenomenon.  Where is the source which claims that child sexual abuse depicted in films which are not quite child porn but still of interest to pedophiles is a culturally significant phenomenon?  This list is "original research," and exists as a directory for pedophiles. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think this is a cross-categorisation so much as it is a subset of a larger group, i.e. portrayals of sexual attraction in culture, which is surely a valid subject for an article (whether that be a list or otherwise). Sheffield Steel talkstalk 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment ...you're ignoring that the "category" itself is being challenged: this is not a list portraying sexual attraction, it's a list of films in which children are sexually abused.  There's a huge POV problem with the title/category itself.  Imagine if someone took all of the documentaries which have addressed sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc, and then claimed they fit into the category "Films which depict sexual attraction to torture victims."  The main category would be documentaries that address torture.  Is there any encyclopedic need for a subset list whatsoever?  And if there was, it would be called "List of films that depict sexual abuse of torture victims," not "List of Films that portray sexual attarction to torture victims."  See the POV problem?  The POV problem also points to the lack of encyclopedic need for any such list. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging by your statements, you seem to misunderstand how lists work on Wikipedia. Cross-categorizations are those with unnecessarily complicated criteria; this isn't one, as only one (maybe two, if you include the 'to children' part; however, a list of movies that portray sexual attraction is itself unnecessarily complex and can be broken up into smaller, more useful articles, such as this one) including factor exists (i.e, "list of films that portray x", where in this case, x is sexual attraction to children) a good example would be "List of films made my Miramax that portray x", which is unnecessarily complicated.  It clearly doesn't apply to this specific list.  Regarding this being a culturally significant phenomenon, it does not have to be.  It is a list.  It simply takes information available in other articles and coalesces them for easy browsing by humans.  It isn't anything that isn't available anywhere else on Wikipedia (if it is, it needs to be removed from the list).  Regarding your second series of points, which seems to be "It's only of interest to pedophiles, so we should delete it", Wikipedia does not work that way, as we have editors from all walks of life who edit articles that are of interest to them.  Our only thresholds are verifiability and reliabile sources, and this article fulfills both of those on the pages of the movies mentioned.  You should have a look at the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page.  Regarding the pedophilia reference itself, Wikipedia is not censored, so per policy, objectionable content is not a valid reason for deletion, just as much as "It's only of interest to a specific group of people".  I hope I've helped to clear up some confusion. Celarnor Talk to me  15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This AfD is just another attempt to flog a witch-hunting agenda using the revolting language of those busy kicking scapegoats. "Wank list for pedophiles"? Shame on you! The flimsy rationalization given for deletion is just that. I am glad you mentioned at the other AfD that you were going after this article as well, otherwise I would never have known. Haiduc (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not see anywhere else on Wikipedia any such category as "List of Films portraying sexual attraction" in general, of which there could therefore be any de facto subset categories.  Again, if there were such a major category, with any need for subset categories, this list would still not fit into it, because it is not a list portraying sexual attraction, it is a list of films portraying sexual abuse. (Read the film summaries.) Regarding "wank list for pedophiles," read WP:SPADE. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with the title, and you feel it is too indiscriminate, then you should propose a List of Films portraying sexual abuse to children on the talk page of this list and leave this with its own content; the solution is not to delete everything. Celarnor Talk to me  16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the talk page of the article--it appears that List of Films Featuring Pedophila was already deleted:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents#Merger_proposal]. The POV-pushing title/categorization is the point of having the list, it seems. (If it has an unbiased title, they don't even want the list.) Wikipedia is not the public relations arm of NAMBLA, people. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —Longhair\talk 21:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Attempts to have such lists as "List of Films portraying sexual attraction" were only rejected because they were over-inclusive. And now this, being a more definable & limited topic, is proposed as overcategorization. I do think we are seeing attempts at violation of NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though this article should be retitled, it's not an indiscriminate list, cross-categorization, "wank list for pedophiles," or any of the other straws Petra is grasping at. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This list is very very poorly defined and organized. First of all, it has films such as Bertolucci's 1900. In no way is 1900 about child sexual abuse--someone has included it on the basis of a single instance, which is trivial in the context of a nine hour film. It would be like including 1900 in a list of films about Italian food. (Actually, since there is more Italian food than child sexual abuse in 1900, that would be more apropos.)  Inclusion of films like 1900 is POV-pushing original research.  Then the list includes films in which child sexual abuse actually is the main subject of the film or driving plot twist of the film, like Mystic River and L.I.E.  The problem with including those films is the title of the list--"sexual attraction" is not what is depicted.  In Mystic River for example, a boy is abducted and killed.  The additonal absurdity of including this film on the list is that this happens as backstory, before the film begins, so no character is ever depicted onscreen being "sexually attracted" to a child. The film is about the aftermath of the abduction and killing of a little boy, and who did it or why is not known, although characters in the film believe the boy was abducted and killed by a pedophile. The title of the list itself "Sexual attraction to..." is hugely problemmatical POV-wise.  It should clearly be "sexual abuse," per Wikipedia's policy on NPOV, as that is the mainstream view. If a child is sexually abused on film, the fact that a pedophile was sexually attracted to the child is an extreme fringe definition of what the film is about. If the title of the list were changed to "Child Sexual Abuse in Films," or :Films Featuring Pedophilia" that might be appropriate--and half this list and all its little taglines would have to go, as many of the films included do not feature pedophilia at all. The list has been written from the POV that child sexual abuse is "sexual attraction to children," i.e., the pedophile point of view on child sexual abuse, which is the extreme fringe view of child sexual abuse, and then made it easier for pedophiles to track down any titillating reference, however small, to child sexual abuse in a lot of films which are not about child sexual abuse at all. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then a title change is in order, not a deletion of the relevant content. You don't need an AfD to do that.  Celarnor Talk to me  16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As already explained, there are many more problems with this list than the name--the name points to the POV problem, from which other problems stem, namely original research. This entire section of the list is complete original research. There are no sources to be cited which claim that Kill Bill, The Big Lebowski etc. are in any way remotely *about* child sexual abuse, let alone have it as even a "minor theme."  It's just the opinion of the list writer(s), who are really, really stretching:


 * Strong keep nom in bad faith, nom not familiar with policies, no valid reason for deletion, etc. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Is this list simply a way to replace the deleted Films portraying Pedophilia? Would we be having this discussion if this was the title of the article as arguably it should be?  As I understand Wikipedia, it is not for "lists".  I see nothing encyclopedic or notable about this article and feel that Google could easily replace it for those who are interested in the gathering of such information.  Further: There is also absence of WP:V, WP:RS and some original research. Shouldn't there be references supporting each film's inclusion and the exact reason for that inclusion.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment No it isn't. The list of Films portraying Pedophilia was a duplicate I created in error. You say, "As I understand Wikipedia, it is not for "lists"." It is actually, there are hundreds of lists.Tony (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Tony


 * Comment Then why isn't the list called List of films portraying pedophilia. That's what it is after all.  Pedophilia is defined as an attraction to minors.  Isn't calling it "sexual attraction to children or adolescents" just being euphemistic?Mysteryquest (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Films where the sexual attraction to girls is a minor theme

 * The Aristocrats, 2005, directed by Paul Provenza
 * The Big Lebowski, 1998 directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
 * Jesus Quintana (John Turturro) went to prison for exposing himself to an 8-year-old girl


 * The Cider House Rules, 1999, directed by Lasse Hallström.
 * Donnie Darko, 2001 directed by Richard Kelly
 * A motivational speaker (Patrick Swayze), is discovered to be a pedophile when his collection of child pornography is found.


 * Forrest Gump, 1994, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks
 * Kill Bill Vol. 1, 2003, directed by Quentin Tarantino - during Chapter 3: the Origin of O-Ren Ishii
 * Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, 2005, directed by Shane Black
 * My Father the Hero, (My father, ce héros), 1994, directed by Steve Miner
 * A 14-year-old girl pretends to be her father's lover in order to impress a boy.


 * National Lampoon's Animal House 1978 directed by John Landis
 * Thomas Hulce's character discovers the girl he's just lost his virginity to is only thirteen.

-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Osama, 2003, directed by Siddiq Barmak
 * Silent Hill, 2006, directed by Christophe Gans
 * Strange Circus
 * Volver, 2006, directed by Pedro Almodóvar
 * You Are Mine Forever aka In Quiet Night, 1996, directed by H. Anne Riley.


 * Comment to put it succinctly, this list should be deleted because the criteria for inclusion isn't based on category, it's based on point of view.  If the authors want to revive "List of Films Feauturing Pedophilia," which they deleted, that wouldn't be this list with another name, it would be a completely different article. (Based on categorization that holds some validity, and that would include *some* of the material in this list.)  But merely changing the name of this list doesn't solve the problem that this list isn't organized on any categorical principles, it's a huge mess held together by a point of view.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim that there are no sources for putting together such a list is false. I spent a couple of minutes this morning researching just that, and came up right away with almost half a dozen sources for the other article this gentleman is trying to sink, Pederastic filmography. These sources will have to go into the respective articles for each movie, and then that will satisfy the requirement. But the very fact that the material can be sourced, and the sources are out there and in copious quantity, demolished the argument that this is "original research". Haiduc (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no sources which claim, for example, that child sexual abuse is a culturally significant in Kill Bill, The Big Lebowski, Animal House, 1900 etc--that's just pure OR. It doesn't matter if one claims the films themselves as references, because there is no reference making the association. Also, I am not a gentleman; I am female, thank you very much. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the references for the Pederastic filmography article, since some of those movies also happen to be in this list, and since quite obviously you cannot have pederastic desire without having sexual attraction. While I agree with you that you are no gentleman, I am not persuaded that you are a female. Haiduc (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to subjective criteria. While there are films that have pedophilia as a theme, there is clearly no way to determine whether or not an instance of "sexual attraction to children or adolescents" is substantial enough to list the respective film.  As indicated in the list of films above, such instances can be irrelevant to the film as a whole.  It seems like having this list would be akin to listing every incident in a film -- listing every film that portrays a murder, every film that portrays a car accident, every film that portrays cooking. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep nom in bad faith, nom not familiar with policies, no valid reason for deletion, etc. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This doesn't have any encyclopedic value and fails notability. I fail to see why we would want such a list. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Bad faith nom. Valid encyclopedic subject.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP with MAJOR changes The list is interesting, but I agree that it seems to point out every film with any, however remote or implied, reference to child sexuality. Since there is obviously some demand for keeping some sort of list, some options for solutions other than changing the title would be helpful. My opinion would be to generate a much narrower list where childhood sexuality is the main focus of the film, not just an isolated incident such as a brief flash of nudity. This could also be broken down into a list of films featuring childhood sexual abuse (Boys of St. Vincent), one of non-coercive childhood sexual affairs (For a Lost Soldier, Lolita), or possibly one for pedophile features (The Woodsman). Whichever way, there needs to be significant cleanup. Other suggestions welcome. Thanks, Ikzing (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per rationale here. Note that these three related AfDs really should have been bundled. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:54, 9 April 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.