Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works for the theatre 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   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Blatant original research. Mainly unreferenced fails WP:DIRECTORY and clearly fails WP:LISTCRUFT. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:41, 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 songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (3rd nomination).--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - nom sums it up rather well, especially WP:LISTCRUFT - A l is o n  ❤ 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete original research/synthesis, fails WP:V, and additional reasons per nom. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom . OR much.—Sandahl  (♀)  00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant OR, as Scott says. Kevin (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Concur, this seems to be clear OR. There might be an overarching encyclopedic topic covering this and related articles, but that's a separate issue; this has too much OR to be salvageable. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely OR. Aiken   &#9835;  19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unsalvageable original research. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because presumably criticism can be found that discusses this. I'm a little curious: why the negative reaction to this and the more positive reaction to "Songs...." ? They would appear exactly analogous.   DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be quite happy with an article which discusses this, using reliable sources. However, a list is binary and tends to have to say "yes or no" rather than discuss. In general, I don't think we ought to lists on such if we have no article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the usual desirability of having articles as well. In this case,  we  need an article on the subject. I have insufficient familiarity with the theater to write one, though.    DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Scott and Alison. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 08:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced WP:OR. I'm not opposed to someone adding well-referenced, culturally relevant plays two the articles on pedophilia and child sexual abuse. These are not necessarily the same theme, and conflating them is a bad idea. The editor doing that might as well start from scratch. Pcap ping  12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  12:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete pr nom. Guestworker (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure how this article is original research when it is linking to the works "portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors." It is not as though we cannot simply click on the works and see if they do portray pedophilia or the sexual abuse of minors. Although...if those articles do not have sources in them backing up these claims, that could be considered one of the problems. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, inappropriate and unsourced original research. It really saddens me that DGG thinks this garbage should be kept.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:38, 12 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.