Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolicon (2nd 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   Baiting, disruption. Editors are strongly warned that neutral edits to articles about notable but controversial topics, along with topics about crime, are wholly within policy and are not advocative. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lolicon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:FANCRUFT in vio WP:PED. FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Disagree with the "fancruft" tag. This is a controversial area, but it cannot be swept under the carpet. Lolicon is a common part of Japanese Internet culture, and there are numerous reliable sources cited in the article. All of the images in the article were checked during the Sanger brouhaha, and no complaints were made by the FBI. This article needs close monitoring, but also needs to comply with WP:NOTCENSORED.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, ianmacm, WP is not to be censored, generally, however WP:PED's "The practice and advocacy of "pedophilia" (child sexual abuse) on the English Wikipedia are strictly prohibited" is an exception to the tenor of the policy, otherwise, at WP:NOTCENSORED.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully support WP:PED, but cannot see how this article is actively advocating pedophilia. There is a parallel here with articles about some aspects of Ancient Greek culture, such as Cretan pederasty. Distasteful to many, yes, but not outside Wikipedia guidelines.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fancruft with pedophilic content on WPdia verges into its practice of pedophilia.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Close Now. Trolling by SPA. Jack Merridew 12:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a SPA and have only a slight interest in this topic.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There have been good faith complaints about this article in the past, which has led to close supervision. The current version seems to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. The citations include law journals and national newspapers. The article does not fail WP:PED, which would require clear evidence of activity likely to violate State of Florida law.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:00, 3 July 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.