Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 29

Adult-child sex
I recommend waiting to see how the term is used in 2009 and later in both scholarly and non-scholarly circles before attempting to create an article, redirect, or disambiguation page with this name. If the term is used consistently by multiple sources to mean something identical to a single existing article or section of an existing article, redirect away. If it's used for more than one thing and both are covered, use a disambiguation page. If it's used for something not covered and the not-covered thing meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, create the article and put hatnotes to point to any other uses, if any. If it's used for something not covered but the not-covered thing should be inserted into an existing article rather than be its own article, insert it then create a redirect or, if necessary, disambiguation page. If the term has fallen out of use entirely or is not used much at all anymore, then keeping the phrase red may be appropriate.

I removed the one remaining incoming link from an article to Adult-child sex. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I figure I will comment here, I'm not sure if the project page should be edited since it is dated December and it is now February. I hate red links too, and a big problem is if it is left blank, some troll will just go and recreate it, so they should redirect it to age of consent to avoid this, since that article is the most relevant thing I can think of to the subject matter. Redirects beat deletion every time. A redirect can be semi or full protected if people are worried that someone will try to change it back to an article. Tyciol (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)