Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Delete. The consensus of the discussion indicates that this FAQ addresses questions that 1) are not in fact frequently asked on the article's talk page, and 2) are covered more generally at General disclaimer and WP:NOTCENSORED. --RL0919 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ
Read it... I don't even know how what to say. Note that the author of this FAQ is not the same as the user quoted here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Confused. This appears to be a FAQ that appears at the top of the talk page, addressing some of the most frequent comments made by users.  I've seen similar FAQs on other articles that get the same questions and comments over and over, such as Evolution and Barack Obama.  You say "I don't know what to say," but I am afraid I don't understand why this particular FAQ should be deleted- can you express your objection more clearly? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I searched for a) said quote by the user and b)any communication on whether the user quoted wants to be quoted. I know wikipedia content can be freely distributed, but I don't think that applies to quotes by users that can be ripped out of context and pasted into an "official" FAQ. I know I wouldn't want that; it's a matter of principle. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you ask him?  And if it's just the one quote that is objectionable, why not rephrase it rather than deleting the whole FAQ?  I'm afraid I still don't understand why this is nominated for deletion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't considering revdel. That would be an option. But that's not the only point -- If a was to edit it, I would blank the entire page. "Are you promoting pedophilia?"... do we have FAQ that read "Are you for gassing Jews?" "Are you guys communist?" "Are you pro-life?" "pro death?" "Do you like cucumbers?".. of course not. "Are there pedophiles on wikipedia?" (with a link to foxnews)... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rephrase, or just remove the quoted part which is only one user's POV. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Changed my !vote per Johnuniq's convincing arguments below. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep But with OE's changes.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So how would you handle the second and 3rd point? (maybe I am really off-track here, but I'd really like to know why we wouldn't then put "why does wikipedia exsist?" or "why are you guys writing stuff at all?" on every article. I hope that drives home the point. We have the General Disclaimer, we have WP:NOTCENSORED.)
 * From what I understand of why we have these kinds of FAQs on controversial articles is simply to reduce the amount of repetitive questions that uninformed readers frequently ask. Not every reader knows that we have the General Disclaimer, and WP:NOTCENSORED. But as far as whether this particular article even needs a FAQ I don't know, that's something I'd have to study the talk page history for. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The talkpage has 6 sections added over the past year. So there's really no storm of "frequent" questions. Just saying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Seb Im not sure if youre familiar with the many news stories that have appeared recently that accuse Wikipedia of actually being in favor of child pornography and legalization of pedophilia, but they exist and have come from sources surprisingly close to the mainstream media (e.g. not just blogs). To some, just the fact that we allow open editing and do not lock out the whole world just to keep out pedophiles proves that we are slyly trying to sneak pro-pedophlie viewpoins into Wikipedia.  Although to be fair, even these news stories tend to be skeptical of the claims, that doesnt mean that the people who read them share the skepticism.  Type 'wikipedia pedophilia' into any search engine for a sample.  I don't believe any of these stories have specifically mentioned Nambla, but it doesnt seem unwarranted to me to worry about people thinking that because we have a Nambla article, we (i.e. "the Wikipedia insiders cabal" you so often hear about) must clearly be in favor of allowing Nambla members to edit it to make it more favorable, or even that we're doing it ourselves consciously.   —  Soap  —  10:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do know the whole story. It still seems odd to have a blanket-FAQ; but if people really think this kind of stuff is needed... ah well, I thought it was an obvious delete. I can't find an FAQ for Homosexuality that answers "Why are you promoting fag-stuff?" or "Do you guys know you'll burn in hell for this?" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not only is the current wording biased, I think the existence of the FAQ itself leads to bias. The FAQ's only purpose seems to be to say "we're sorry we have an article on this topic, but wiki policies dictate that we have to". Christopher Connor (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Purpose of the FAQ is to address recurring questions. In fact, when I recently stumbled upon NAMBLA these questions were foremost on my mind. Georgewilliamherbert's quote comes from the AfD and it seemed to succinctly sum up the Keep sentiment. I hope there aren't any objections to making our child protection policy easily accessible and a link to the Pedophile Watch so interested editors can participate. Lionel (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They might have been on your mind, but that doesn't make them "frequently asked" -- and I didn't even see the link to pedophile watch. I sense an agenda... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't see this PAW? Agenda? I'm dying to know what it is. Please share... Lionel (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "I sense". Might just be that I am wrong. I don't want to get personal, so forget it. I still stand by my nomination, though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI... there's no benefit to linking WP:PAW. That project has been inactive for around 18 months other than a couple talk page comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The very nature of Frequently Asked Questions is that they are frequently asked, thoughts in one's head don't justify "Sure Wikipedia has pedofiles, just ask Fox News". There is very few questions being asked at all. Cat clean (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The page is simply not helpful and the talk page history shows that a "FAQ" is not required (there are no frequently asked questions). According to the article talk page, there has been no attempt to delete the article since 2007, so the question "Why does this article exist?" does not arise. And yet, if someone did feel like testing AfD again, there should not be a FAQ to "prove" that the AfD attempt is wrong in some way (of course such an AfD would and should fail, due to WP:N, not the FAQ). The remaining questions are a perfect example of failing WP:BEANS: "Are we promoting pedophilia?" – just asking the question raises an absurd POV, and linking to a misleading foxnews beatup is not at all helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't a FAQ (as Johnunig details) and as such should be deleted.  Skier Dude  ( talk  04:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Johnuniq  expressed the reasons well.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Johnuniq, this is essentially misleading. Claritas § 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep . This page is transcluded onto the article talk page.  Whether it belongs or not is a matter for the talk page.  This is the wrong forum, and this discussion is not sufficiently advertised - there should be an MfD warning notice in a new section at Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MfD warning posted at Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one there seems much interested. I see now that this FAQ page is very recent.  I suggest copying, with attribution, to a new section on the talk page before deleting FAQ page.  Transcluded content should be proposed on the talk page before trasncluding in a banner at the top.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and Johnuniq. Wikipedia may not be censored but there is absolutely no reason for including this as an article. moreno oso (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Christopher Connor's argument. This FAQ reads like an apology for having the article. The quote from Georgewilliamherbert conveys a moral indignation that is way inappropriate in the context of a FAQ. Maybe a FAQ is warranted based in the history of the article's talk page, but then these should not be the questions and answers in it. __meco (talk) 07:15, 4 September 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.