Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (3rd nomination)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Blatant original research, it has languished unreferenced and unmonitored for years now. It's been through two prior AfDs which returned 'no consensus' plus promises of improvement which never came to fruition. Also fails WP:DIRECTORY and clearly fails WP:LISTCRUFT per points 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 A l is o n  ❤ 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — A l is o n  ❤ 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors and Articles for deletion/List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

-- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research and highly subjective.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has references. If the references support the claim that a particular song deals with paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, then it isn't original research. In some cases, the topic of a song may be sufficiently obvious that a reference is unnecessary. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research/synthesis - plus multiple additional grounds for deletion per nom. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is obviously not unreferenced and adding more references seems easy - I just added another one. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it still clearly fails WP:LISTCRUFT amongst others. Refs are not the only issue here - A l is o n  ❤ 00:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay and so is just a matter of opinion and taste. WP:CENSOR is a policy . Colonel Warden (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Garbage is garbage, far as I'm concerned. People will decide accordingly. And WP:DIRECTORY is certainly policy, BTW - A l is o n  ❤ 01:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete Probably there are enough academic sources to create a general Pedophilia in popular culture overview, but we have WP:Categories which are a perfectly good substitute for such lists. Song meanings in particular though bring us into the realm of WP:OR as it's simply Lit Crit. -- Kendrick7talk 02:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless listcruft. Completely ridiculous group of otherwise unrelated songs. Viridae Talk 03:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as insignificant cross of random categorizations. Per WP:NOTDIR, #6: "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".  Random lists of topics of songs isn't really a "sufficient basis to create an article".  -- Jayron  32  03:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just what Wikipedia needs, San Quentin Quayle's Greatest Hits. And it's missing the most obvious one, "Hot Child in the City". Apparently the author became distracted when he got to F. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete entirely original research.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or incubate. It requires a lot of work, trimming, sourcing etc. but it is not worthless -and deletion policy tell us that we shouldn't delete when things can be fixed by editing. Many editors here cite the essay WP:LISTCRUFT the list, clearly, doesn't fall under that. We have articles on the subject of paedophilia, we can have RS that cite the song as depicting the subject, it is not a trivial or non-notable intersection (it is an highly controversial subject of popular culture). -- Cycl o pia talk  14:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayron32, above, has already clearly expressed the rationale that I believe applies here. Deor (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DIR and WP:OR. I'll throw in this:  who defines "minor"?  That does depend on jurisdiction such that some songs might fit this definition in some places, and not in others.  Far too open to interpretation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin, so his entire catalog might need to be on the list. And don't forgot the big country hit, "Coal Minor's Daughter". Or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (sits back, places feet on back of seat in front and munches loudly on popcorn) - tricky this one - I am very generous/inclusive when it comes to notability and encyclopedic-ness, but believe strongly in the deletion of misinformation and the criteria for this list can be applied quite nebulously. I can't get off the fence...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but source that someone responsible has actually said that. If necessary, semi-protect permanently. If really necessary, make an exception to protection policy by IAR and protect permanently, requiring discussion of new additions on the talk p.   My first thoughts were  the same as Casliber's , but I think we can handle even this.    DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, DGG. How on earth is this list even remotely encyclopedic? I'm truly struggling to find some sort of rationale to warrant keeping it, or even to warrant watchlisting the thing. Seriously, whyy??? We've enough real articles to warrant fretting over. Ugh!! - A l is o n  ❤ 04:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking it could be feasible if (a) semiprotected, and (b) policed with some groundrules that there had to be a reference where the songwriter had stated the song was specifically about paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. Funnily enough, this would be better sourced by a primary rather than secondary source. Material unsourced would be removed otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There are literally millions of songs with unintelligible mush-mouthed lyrics stating that someone wants someone to be his baby, have his baby, have sex with him, or whatever, with rarely a clear indication of the ages of the persons involved. There could be a referenced list or article about songs depicting sexual abuse of minors (HE:"She's only seventeen!" SHE: "He's only thirty-five!("17" by Bill Summers and Summer Heat (1982)) with books stating that the songs depict sexual abuse of a minor, but this is not it. Maybe "Sweet little sixteen " is a song which qualifies, as the reactions of jazz musicians at the Newport 1958 Jazz Festival hearing it indicated . Maybe not. Original research could make "Young girl, get outta my mind, my love for you is way outta line" from 1968 qualify. In many cases, qualification for this list is in the mind of the listener. Edison (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And don't forget "Go Away Little Girl", by that well-known purveyor of lasciviousness, Donnie Osmond. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Sixteen Going on Seventeen from The Sound of Music could possibly fit the bill, again, depending on which jurisdiction you are talking about. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What about "My Heart Belongs to Daddy"? And that was mainstream, in the 40s. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that just had something to do with serving smoked fish. Edison (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Split and merge to paedophilia and child sexual abuse. The article as it is now has been cut down to verfiable material. There may be some culturally relevant songs here, but this list is conflating paedophilia ideation with memories of child sexual abuse. A few singers that have been subjected to sexual abuse as children have used their art as means to express those memories and associated feelings. There may also be some culturally relevant depictions of paedophilia ideation (per WP:NOTCENSORED these should be allowed on the wiki). But, I think that mixing the two themes in the same list is a bad idea. Also, there's not enough material here for a stand-alone list, let alone for two of them. Pcap ping  11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 12:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  12:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge some bits, Delete the rest. Pcap makes a fair point; the confluence between pedophilia and child sexual abuse is a bit tenuous, at least as far as the music goes. Merging some notable examples over to other articles has value, but I don't think we can keep the list. The issues noted by Alison, Jayron32, and others are valid, as well. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jayron32 and Alison. 16x9 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete pr nom. Guestworker (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (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.