Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nymphets and faunlets


 * 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 of the debate was Snow / Speedy / Its gone. Tawker 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

List of nymphets and faunlets
inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Load of POV listcruft. Actually, in the same vein as List of sex symbols. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So? The list of sex symbols isn't up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
 * The "something similar to this article isn't up for deletion so this article shouldn't be deleted" argument has got to be the worst keep argument. Ever. -- Scientizzle 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete "This is a subjective list of ..." 'nuff said. Fan1967 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is the subject matter of the article more than anything else that makes it put up for deletion, as other related articles are. You can't pin-point one article and not another just because you don't agree with its subject matter.  Most of the lists on Wikipedia are POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete I saw it and thought about submitting it myself ... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information BigDT 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What the hell? Delete. Aplomado  talk 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not, go ahead and delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete -- Oh my freaking god. Ditch this meretricious listcruft per nom and BigDT and let the pedos troll elsewhere.  "Faunlets?"  RGTraynor 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems most people's problem with the list is the fact that it says 'nymphet and faunlet'... if it was strictly the POV they were worried about, they'd've also tagged the list of sex symbols and other 'POV' lists... but go ahead, delete it.

A lot of the people on this list are not children, either. Many of them also appear on the list for sex symbols66.181.234.82 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Please deleteUser_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the statute of limitations on trying an AFD again? Looking at the List of Sex Symbols AFD, the vote was 10-7 in favor of deletion.  Of the 7 voting to keep the list, four said that it needed to be trimmed substantially.  It hasn't.  Two of the keeps gave silly reasons.  I guess technically 10-7 could be said to be no consensus ... but honestly, not too much has been done to improve the list and it, too, says that it is a subjective list so I would say it doesn't belong here either.  BigDT 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sex symbols is at least verifiable, one can find sources that meet RS that call them sex symbols. Obvious examples would be Madonna and Marylin Monroe. This list does not seem to have that advantage. JoshuaZ 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete hopelessly POV and unverifiable. JoshuaZ 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The poster child for why lists shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Ted 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. List includes Barbie and Ken, but I didn't notice any citations for any entries, even human ones.  Barno 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above. Um, Kirk Douglas?  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above OSU80 03:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per BigDT and Ted. --TorriTorri 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Sorry Guy 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete G  y  re  04:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV/OR. Scranchuse 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NPOV violation from the first sentence.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. --Ter e nce Ong 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as The Most POV List Ever. But lists are usually quite useful, TedE. Grand  master  ka  06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. DarthVad e r 09:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Far too subjective, not a single cited source. I know "nymphet" comes from Nabokov's Lolita, but "faunlet" is probably a neologism. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 100% POV, and unavoidably so. Consider this my deletelet.  Vizjim 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm.... What am I supposed to say about this except Delete? Beno1000 14:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV. --Ton e  14:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Baleet -- stubblyh ea d | T/c
 * Delete for oh so many reasons... -- Scientizzle 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above -- Samir  [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]   (the scope)   धर्म  17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * whoever said 'faunlet' is a neoligism is wrong, it's in Nabokov's book "Lolita" ALONG WITH nymphet, so it is NOT a neoligism.66.181.234.82 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, alright, it might not be a new term, but it doesn't seem to be a very frequently-used one. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 66.181.234.82 needs to take a look at WP:PKMN. While I'm at it, delete per everyone else. -Whomp 20:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV list. -- e ivindt@c 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. &mdash; CJewell (talk to me) 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as disgusting pedocruft. Wikipedia is developing a reputation as a haven for pedophiles , and crap like this doesn't help.  ergot 14:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * zOMG this is awful. The authors must have ergot poisoning. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... I am not a pedophile, I'm 15, most people on this list are OLDER than I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
 * That's just what you think. I bet you plenty of wikieditors are under 15. And besides, the fact that you are 15 does not ensure that you are not a pedophile. Also, this article sorta violates WP:BEANS. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regardless of how old you might be, this is an article whose very title is borrowing terminology from a novel about pedophilia.  The pedophilia stuff is getting way out of hand, and it's making us look bad in the press.  ergot 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry. And I'm NOT a 15 year old pedophile, I'm attracted to people my age and OLDER.  I can see where you're coming from, but the list was not made in the vein of any kind of pedophilic intent.  As I said, most of the celebrities on the list are older than I am, and most of them I got from the list of sex symbols.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - mm, I'm sorry, but no fifteen-year-old speaks in terms of "nymphets," "faunlets" or any other such child-slanted terminology generally restricted to pedos when discussing their peers. RGTraynor 19:11, 11 May 2006 ,(UTC)
 * That is true in most cases, I don't go around calling my peers nymphet and faunlet, but I did just read Nabokov for class, and thought it would be interesting to make a list. I see now people are making a much bigger thing of it than I meant for it to be... I was just a bored teenager who put together a list with people my age and older after reading Lolita.  Geez, I didn't know: 1. that people would take offense to it and think I was some pedophile, and 2. That wikiedia was ruputed as a pedophile thing... bad editing, yes, but not a pedophile thing.  So, I agree that it should be deleted, because I in no way meant for the list to be that, and since it is being taken that way, I don't want to unneccesarilly offend any one else, so please DELETE it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
 * Ok. I've added to the page. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:54, 10 May 2006 (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.