Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs 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) 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

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

Given the extremely controversial nature of the subject matter, one would expect a list of this nature to be very well referenced and closely monitored for bias or personal opinion. What we actually have is a list of things which somebody thinks might perhaps be about sexual attraction but actually might not be. In many cases a google search for song + sexual turns up zero hits. Many of these songs don't have articles, so there is nowhere that the claim is referenced. The net result is to give a strong appearance of inappropriate advocacy by legitimising an extremely controversial topic through the mechanism of pretending that it is widely discussed in song. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Strong Keep' This is not 'a controversial nature'. It is simply a list of songs where the lyrics explicitly portray sexual attraction to children or adolescents. By the nature of song lyrics, there are few reputable third party references. The lyrics themselves can be quoted, but references to lyrics sites have been rejected in the past because of copyright problems. Jzg's insinuation of 'inappropriate advocacy' is offensive. The songs have been contributed by dozens of different editors. I edit out those where the lyrics are ambiguous.  Tony (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Tony
 * fact. I Googled several song titles + sexual and got zero hits. None of them had reliable sources. In a very few cases there was a link to a copyright-violating reproduction of the lyrics, but that just fails WP:OR. I failed to find reliable secondary sources for more than one of these. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * fact? Just an editor who cannot use google and the same editor who has removed all the songs without giving other editors the opportunity to provide sources. Here is the first hit I got, many of the songs are listed here [].Tony (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Tony
 * Comment: I do not believe that that source is a reliable one per Wikipedia.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Tony's problem is that he has confused sexual attraction with sexual abuse. There are indeed a number of songs that portray sexual abuse of minors, but very few that discuss sexual attraction. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The issues you name are reason for stronger oversight and better sourcing, not deletion. -Toptomcat (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep reason for careful editing, but not for deletion. We should not be ridding WP of articles because they are controversial. DGG (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DIRECTORY (point 5). -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I just added an entry with a citation. Just needs more work to add sources like most articles.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Tomcat and DGG say. Yes, it needs to be carefully monitored and every entry must have a reference to back up its inclusion. So tag each one with fact and let the editors get cracking. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. These are "we should improve this" arguments, not "we should delete this" arguments.  There seems to be a massive move against pedastry-related articles this last week.  Subject is notable, verifiable and probably sourceable in most cases.  No reason to delete.  Celarnor Talk to me  23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not where possible paedophile advocacy is concerned, by long-established precedent. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link to this precedent? It seems to be in violation of WP:NOTCENSORED.  Celarnor Talk to me  11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See for example the debates surrounding the deletion of and various userspace forks thereof.  Paedophile activism is one of the very few things that has Jimbo's direct eye.  Inappropriate paedophile activism is an immediate ban these days.  It is not handled like innocuous uncited material, uncited or poorly sourced material in respect of paedophilia must be removed because of the impact it has on Wikipedia's reputation. I think this predates even the much more rigorous approach to WP:BLPs we now have. Consider: if you are in a band, and somebody writes an unsourced article which includes the assertion that you wrote a song about sexual attraction to children, would that not cause you some anxiety? Guy (Help!) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be more bothered by the source that they cite, as Wikipedia is simply coalescing information from the sources. As for the debates, I'm not an admin, and I don't have access to the logs so I can't find the AfD.  But if consensus is that Wikipedia should be somehow censored, then I guess I just don't agree with consensus, especially if the exceptions aren't laid out in WP:NOTCENSORED.  Celarnor Talk to me  11:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's another problem. None of them had reliable independent secondary sources. Once those were pruned, only one entry is left. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the AfD, and I'm sorry, but I don't see any "we should censor pedaristic content" consensus there. All I saw was "this is a POV fork" consensus, which it probably was, and seems to have been deleted as such.  Celarnor Talk to me  11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Check "what links here" for the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Controversial as it is, you can see from the list that it is a quite common theme, needs work for sources, but it's encyclopedic and verifiable. The Dominator (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have removed the ones which were unsourced. I then reviewed the sourcing of the balance per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and indeed WP:C.  Feel free to reinsert any others which are either credibly sourced within the article on the song or credibly identified as "portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents" by reliable independent secondary sources.  No blogs, no fansites, no lyrics, no personal opinions, only those where there is a reliable independent secondary sources which identifies the song as being in large part (i.e. portraying, not mentioning in passing) sexual attraction to children or adolescents.  Don't Stand So Close To Me is a valid one to include, it has been widely discussed as a Lolita story. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you move them to the talk page like is sometimes done with unsourced trivia? Also, you should insert a hidden comment into the page, in all caps saying that only sourced additions are accepted. Furthermore, some songs should be able to be sourced by the song itself if it explicitly states in the lyrics that it's about "sexual attraction to children" as that is generally considered an acceptable approach, sort of like the "no need to source a straightforward plot summary" rationale. The Dominator (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The content that was removed was unverifiable or unsourced and agree with its removal. In its current state, nothing else on the article is referenced, which due to the controversial nature of these kinds of article, must have verifiability. Unless references are added by the end of this nomination I won't consider keeping this article. —  Κ aiba  10:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a reference and the nominator removed it. His edits seem intended to pre-empt this discussion rather than letting us study the material and see what might be made of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which specific song are refering? If it passes has reliable sources and is not original research, then it could meet specifications to be added. —  Κ aiba  09:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. As the article now stands, it attempts to build a topic around one song. Very, very weak premise. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, the reason why only one song is left is because the nominator of this AfD deleted the rest. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to AfD guidelines, this comment should be completely discounted as a valid reason is not given. The Dominator (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, there is still one song left on the article and the edit was made in good faith, thus no disqualification is applicable. —  Κ aiba  00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote, the comment says "it attempts to build a topic around one song. Very, very weak premise" as its rationale, this is not a reason as obviously the article isn't trying to build a topic on one song. Yours is a valid reason because you recognize that the content removed was done so rightfully and it is difficult to source, this is arguable but it is a valid reason. The Dominator (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits that are made in good faith are not discounted because the argument is weak, only when there is a policy or guideline that is not being followed i.e. sockpuppetry, incivility, etc. If the argument is weak, then it will be refuted and mostly ignored in the closure, but 'disqualification' is only supposed to be for those who did not make statements in good faith. Not only that, but this particular user is an oppostion to your view point, disqualification of a comment on your part presents a WP:COI. —  Κ aiba  03:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any argument based on the current state of the article, IMO, is inherently invalid as the state of the article can be solved by methods other than deletion (such as actually editing it). That's why I don't look at the articles for AfDs that I'm participating in unless I'm going to edit it; the subject, not the article--since the article is dynamic and can change--is what is being discussed.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An argument being weak does not mean it gets disqualified though, as Dominik92 is trying to push. The difference between the two is that a invalid argument is one is a comment made in good faith but the point of the argument is not a satisfactory one. A comment that should be disqualified is one that was made in bad faith or has violated a Wikipedia policy or guideline. This editor has not violated any policy or guideline and the comment seems like it was not made in malice, so disqualification is not applicable. —  Κ aiba  03:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it should be disqualified; I'm just saying its an extremely weak argument due to its being logical fallacy. !votes like this are among the reason that !votes are discussion with !votes rather than discussion with votes.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  03:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I didn't mean it being disqualified in the sense of "we'll strike it out and not respond" but more in the sense of "doesn't bring anything into this debate and should not hold any weight for the closing admin." So my comment was made more for the closing admin to discount it unless the user comes back and provides a more valid rationale. The Dominator (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. —  Κ aiba  03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As should be entirely obvious, you are free to add any additional entries for which you can find unequivocal reliable independent secondary sources. I removed those which were unsourced, those where the source was personal interpretation of the lyrics, and those where the source was unreliable.  It is not actually my fault that this included virtually the entire list; it is, however, reasonable to suggest that absent credible evidence that more than one entry can be sourced with the required level of rigor, a list is unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. WTF. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * THAT, on the other hand, is a great example of something to be disregarded. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing your tone and throughly explaining yourself is wanted, Zenwhat. —  Κ aiba  07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Under which CSD does it fall? The Dominator (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DIRECTORY #5, and largely amounts to original research. The cited ref (which uses copyvio YouTube videos and lyrics) is of course not a reliable source because it's just a wiki. Spellcast (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment WP:DIRECTORY #5 is the only basis on which to contest this article's existence at this point. Most of the original entries were based on primary sources: the songs themselves. It seems reasonable enough to demand secondary sources in this case, since some editors view every entry as contentious (why?). Therefore this is a work in progress.

I am confused by the linking of this article to advocacy. I don't see how that can be so. It is akin to linking the authors of the songs to advocacy. I'm sure songs in this category are either serious attempts at expression or crude shock efforts. If children are sexually molested, that is because the molester was sexually attracted to them. Some artists may attempt to portray that attraction in song as part of an attempt to deal with the issue. Likewise if the attraction is one of an adult to an adolescent. Note that portraying sexual attraction is quite specific: it may prove that there aren't enough works to sustain the article under this title in any case. 86.44.26.69 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Is this a joke?  Yahel  Guhan  04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your rationale for deletion? <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents  - Honestly, who comes up with this kind of stuff? Somebody actually made a list of songs that portray sexual attraction to children! Forget about the fact that there isn't a single source for the list and that it is completely original research. Am I actually supposed to believe this really is a serious list, and this isn't somebody's idea of a joke? That this isn't somebody's attempt at comedy? I don't see what possible use the existence of this page could possibly serve other than to create sheer shock value that this list actually exists.  Yahel  Guhan  04:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a reasonable list per WP:LIST. Tons of precedent, I recall several "Songs about ____" that made far more sense as lists still being deleted because there's just nothing there, not in terms of what we make. The keep rationales are not really in line with WP:LIST, and are misrepresenting WP:V. It's also vague, poorly defined, and there's not much of a reason to have the list, which is kind of necessary. I have no time to respond to nitpicking, so I will remind the other contributors here that if you vote keep, your rationale will stand on its own merits, and so too will mine. There is no need to nitpick others' rationales, the closing admin is certainly capable of basic reading comprehension. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no WP:V, WP:RS, the interpretation that causes many of these songs to be included are based on original research. The proposition that the lyrics of the song are enough to determine that the song belongs in this list is weak as songs and lyrics are open to widely differing interpretation. Also, the inclusion of some songs in this list could be a violation of WP:LIVING WP:BLP.  The controversial nature of the subject matter makes it even more important to hew tightly to Wikipedia policies.  Even if the article was to be kept, much of the songs would have to be deleted for failing to adhere to those same policies.  This article is just a directory, and a subjective one at that.  It belongs on somebody's website or blog, not in an encyclopedia.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V is not a valid speedy deletion criteria, perhaps people should stop throwing around "speedy" so carelessly, your reason is valid for deletion, but not speedy deletion. It obviously doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD. The Dominator (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, I have changed my vote accordingly.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator and because of fundamental original research issues. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:06, 10 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.