Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:14, 5 April 2008

List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

wikipedia is not a directory PetraSchelm (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Misplaced Pages has thousands of 'List' articles Portal:Contents/Lists_of_topics so I cannot understand the rationale for wanting to delete this article. The talk page demonstrates a strong consensus that this article, under its new title, is an important contribution to Misplaced Pages knowledge.Tony (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Tony

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Nominator fails to give a good reason for deletion; this is a perfectly discriminate list in accordance with policy. Celarnor 14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Firstly, from "What Misplaced Pages is Not": "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization for this issue in categories." Second, the title of this list is blaringly biased agenda-pushing. If you read through the list, most of the films depict child sexual abuse, not "sexual attraction to children or adolescents." The weak caveat that some of the films may depict child sexual abuse does not match the contents of the list. The one-sided agenda of title of the article begs the reason for this list at all--it's just a wank list for pedophiles; it is not a culturally significant phenomenon. Where is the source which claims that child sexual abuse depicted in films which are not quite child porn but still of interest to pedophiles is a culturally significant phenomenon? This list is "original research," and exists as a directory for pedophiles. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this is a cross-categorisation so much as it is a subset of a larger group, i.e. portrayals of sexual attraction in culture, which is surely a valid subject for an article (whether that be a list or otherwise). Sheffield Steel_stalk 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment ...you're ignoring that the "category" itself is being challenged: this is not a list portraying sexual attraction, it's a list of films in which children are sexually abused. There's a huge POV problem with the title/category itself. Imagine if someone took all of the documentaries which have addressed sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc, and then claimed they fit into the category "Films which depict sexual attraction to torture victims." The main category would be documentaries that address torture. Is there any encyclopedic need for a subset list whatsoever? And if there was, it would be called "List of films that depict sexual abuse of torture victims," not "List of Films that portray sexual attarction to torture victims." See the POV problem? The POV problem also points to the lack of encyclopedic need for any such list. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by your statements, you seem to misunderstand how lists work on Misplaced Pages. Cross-categorizations are those with unnecessarily complicated criteria; this isn't one, as only one (maybe two, if you include the 'to children' part; however, a list of movies that portray sexual attraction is itself unnecessarily complex and can be broken up into smaller, more useful articles, such as this one) including factor exists (i.e, "list of films that portray x", where in this case, x is sexual attraction to children) a good example would be "List of films made my Miramax that portray x", which is unnecessarily complicated. It clearly doesn't apply to this specific list. Regarding this being a culturally significant phenomenon, it does not have to be. It is a list. It simply takes information available in other articles and coalesces them for easy browsing by humans. It isn't anything that isn't available anywhere else on Misplaced Pages (if it is, it needs to be removed from the list). Regarding your second series of points, which seems to be "It's only of interest to pedophiles, so we should delete it", Misplaced Pages does not work that way, as we have editors from all walks of life who edit articles that are of interest to them. Our only thresholds are verifiability and reliabile sources, and this article fulfills both of those on the pages of the movies mentioned. You should have a look at the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page. Regarding the pedophilia reference itself, Misplaced Pages is not censored, so per policy, objectionable content is not a valid reason for deletion, just as much as "It's only of interest to a specific group of people". I hope I've helped to clear up some confusion. Celarnor 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This AfD is just another attempt to flog a witch-hunting agenda using the revolting language of those busy kicking scapegoats. "Wank list for pedophiles"? Shame on you! The flimsy rationalization given for deletion is just that. I am glad you mentioned at the other AfD that you were going after this article as well, otherwise I would never have known. Haiduc (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not see anywhere else on Misplaced Pages any such category as "List of Films portraying sexual attraction" in general, of which there could therefore be any de facto subset categories. Again, if there were such a major category, with any need for subset categories, this list would still not fit into it, because it is not a list portraying sexual attraction, it is a list of films portraying sexual abuse. (Read the film summaries.) Regarding "wank list for pedophiles," read WP:SPADE. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the title, and you feel it is too indiscriminate, then you should propose a List of Films portraying sexual abuse to children on the talk page of this list and leave this with its own content; the solution is not to delete everything. Celarnor 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page of the article--it appears that List of Films Featuring Pedophila was already deleted:. The POV-pushing title/categorization is the point of having the list, it seems. (If it has an unbiased title, they don't even want the list.) Misplaced Pages is not the public relations arm of NAMBLA, people. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\ 21:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep Attempts to have such lists as "List of Films portraying sexual attraction" were only rejected because they were over-inclusive. And now this, being a more definable & limited topic, is proposed as overcategorization. I do think we are seeing attempts at violation of NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Though this article should be retitled, it's not an indiscriminate list, cross-categorization, "wank list for pedophiles," or any of the other straws Petra is grasping at. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This list is very very poorly defined and organized. First of all, it has films such as Bertolucci's 1900. In no way is 1900 about child sexual abuse--someone has included it on the basis of a single instance, which is trivial in the context of a nine hour film. It would be like including 1900 in a list of films about Italian food. (Actually, since there is more Italian food than child sexual abuse in 1900, that would be more apropos.) Inclusion of films like 1900 is POV-pushing original research. Then the list includes films in which child sexual abuse actually is the main subject of the film or driving plot twist of the film, like Mystic River and L.I.E. The problem with including those films is the title of the list--"sexual attraction" is not what is depicted. In Mystic River for example, a boy is abducted and killed. The additonal absurdity of including this film on the list is that this happens as backstory, before the film begins, so no character is ever depicted onscreen being "sexually attracted" to a child. The film is about the aftermath of the abduction and killing of a little boy, and who did it or why is not known, although characters in the film believe the boy was abducted and killed by a pedophile. The title of the list itself "Sexual attraction to..." is hugely problemmatical POV-wise. It should clearly be "sexual abuse," per Misplaced Pages's policy on NPOV, as that is the mainstream view. If a child is sexually abused on film, the fact that a pedophile was sexually attracted to the child is an extreme fringe definition of what the film is about. If the title of the list were changed to "Child Sexual Abuse in Films," or :Films Featuring Pedophilia" that might be appropriate--and half this list and all its little taglines would have to go, as many of the films included do not feature pedophilia at all. The list has been written from the POV that child sexual abuse is "sexual attraction to children," i.e., the pedophile point of view on child sexual abuse, which is the extreme fringe view of child sexual abuse, and then made it easier for pedophiles to track down any titillating reference, however small, to child sexual abuse in a lot of films which are not about child sexual abuse at all. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates