Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a pedophile theme


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

List of films with a pedophile theme

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No context or information, just a list of (largely unlinked) and unreferenced titles. I've seen quite a few of the films on the list; many of them only feature a brief sub-plot about a pedophile, some don't include any pedophile themes. Croxley 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Keep: Responding to comments above: all films are clearly linked by the topic of pedophilia - sometimes as the major them, sometimes as a minor theme. A much more detailed list with back up infomration and links etc can be found at Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. That article, which I 'maintain', is divided into sections and is quite long. This list, which is (I agree)to some extent a duplication, puts all the films into one alphabetical list and so may be more useful for some wikipedians. It is easy to verify all the films though the above article and by visiting Imdb or Amazon etc. Most wiki lists are structured like this one. Tony 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Tony ps Haemo is strickly correct on the grammar, but 'List of films with a pedophiliac theme' would be clumsy and most learned articles on pedophilia now use pedophile as an adjective as well as a noun. Pedophiliac is seldom used.
 * Delete - probably impossible to verify, and moreover almost certainly consists of original research, and surely will be an endless honeypot for it, since it's highly subjective what constitutes a "pedophile theme" (not to mention the broken grammar in that phrase.  --Haemo 08:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as is, but not as a bar to a better-titled article restricting itself to listing films for which an independent citable source had discussed a significant element of pedophilia(I'm sure plenty could be found for, e.g., Lolita). bd2412  T 12:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate list and directory. Otto4711 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert to cat: This list is pretty much a duplicate in purpose of Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films neither serve any purpose as an article that couldn't be better served as a category. A category would have the additional benefit of a tag on the individual articles that could then be verified by editors more familiar with the content of the films. --Monotonehell 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable aspect of films. Good use of duplication of imformation.  WP:LIST - Navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a significant common thematic element.--JayHenry 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons given so far. This is certainly a notable topic. Also, it should be noted that Otto4711 has nominated a very large number of film lists for AfD and in AfD debates seems to hold the opinion that Wikipedia should be list-free. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that not only did I not nominate this article for deletion but your claim that I think Wikipedia should be list-free is a complete fabrication and utter misrepresentation of my position. I would appreciate it if you feel compelled to comment about me you would refrain from lying. Thank you. Otto4711 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So far, I've never seen you argue to keep a list, and much of the time, most of your reasons given in arguments to delete lists boil down to little more than "lists are bad." Furthermore, knowing something about the sheer volume of list-related deletions you're involved in right now (most with a canned statement of flaws when you were the nominator) may put your comments here in context. If you wish to use strong accusations such as calling me a liar, please go to my talk page for it instead of cluttering this AfD. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have not happened to see me support a list does not reasonably translate into "believes Wikipedia should be list-free." Characterizing my nominations of various lists as "lists are bad" is another misrepresentation. And I will continue to call you out on your misrepresentations and fabrications when and where you make them, even if you do prefer that I hide them away on your talk page. Otto4711 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. No need for the duplicate, so let's use the better article.  --UsaSatsui 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable aspect of films. --Masterpedia 03:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Convert to cat as per discussion above --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. I was looking at Category:Pedophilia and saw that these duplicate topics were included. I was going to consider suggesting merging them, when much to my surprise, I found onen of them up for deletion! This list doesn't constitute original research, though. Macarenaman 08:05, 2 March 2007 (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.