Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors


 * 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 to delete. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This came up for deletion about two weeks ago by an editor who opposed it on moral grounds. I voted keep, but subsequently noticed that the increased scrutiny the article was under has resulted in it being a list unable to sustain a single sourced entry. I am renominating it on that grounds. Toptomcat (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My original concerns have been addressed, but since I believe that there are still significant (though possibly fixable) issues with the list as raised by others, I am not withdrawing my nomination, but am changing my personal vote on the issue to a Weak Keep. -Toptomcat (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing contained in the list.  Reywas92 Talk  21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete without prejudice to future recreation. This has been nominated for deletion before, and kept because it was believed that it could actually contain something; apparently that isn't the case.  I think it has potential, but it shouldn't be sitting in the mainspace without containing anything.  Celarnor Talk to me  21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. I have added a song with a couple of citations to show that it's easy if you just make an effort. There are lots more such songs in earlier versions of this article.  They just need sources too.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a sourcing nightmare. While it's theoretically possible that this could be an encyclopaedic list, it's far more likely to end up as a mess of original research and biased accusations. Since the subject doesn't seem particularly notable, we'd be better off just deleting it and avoiding the trouble. Terraxos (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Terraxos and WP:IAR. This article will just be an OR cruftmagnet pov nightmare. No value to the encylopedia in relation to amount of energy/time/editors necessary to watch over it and clean it up.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Terraxos and PetraSchelm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per PetraSchelm. Also I have doubts that this sort of stuff is encyclopaedic. By it's nature it seems to be pushing a particular POV. X Marx The Spot (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete when the sufficient secondary sourcing comes along to back up anything like this, we'll know it. Until then, it doesn't really serve a purpose. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient subjects and citations have been added to make this into a good article.  Celarnor Talk to me  07:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete short list, always will be a short list. I'm sure that the few cited examples can be discussed in the relevant article as prose. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a Merge rather than deletion. And what is this other relevant article? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The other relevant articles are the articles about the artists/albums/songs. The Joni Mitchell song you added, for example, is already mentioned in the article about that album. The Siouxsie and the Banshees song you added already has its own article as well. The Pat Benatar article already mentions her song Hell is for Children viz child abuse. Etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You could say this about any list. The purpose of a list is navigation - linking such articles with a common theme together. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just explaining what I believe was meant by "prose in the relevant article," since you asked.-PetraSchelm (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LC points 2, 4 and 8. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an essay, is not a policy or even a guideline. Mathmo Talk 08:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And? Stifle (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I strongly oppose deletion purely on the basis of it being a list. So the other important question to be resolved is if it can be sourced? Apparently so according to another editor. Mathmo Talk 08:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per nom's new position. --Ubardak (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, referencing now added. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as now improved DGG (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep now improved by nomWENCESLAV (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WENCESLAV registered his account the day he voted, made seven edits, and hasn't edited since.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to weak Keep But, how can any self respecting list of songs about sexual abuse of children be complete without mentioning GWAR's contribution to the field? Protonk (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, has improved since nomination, although Terraxo's argument is somewhat compelling.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 19:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stifle. Specifically, point 8. Lara  ❤  Love  01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename to avoid POV and curious association between the two completely different things. Lambton T/C 01:41, 7 May 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.