Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Morality and the Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Morality and the Law

We have articles about books. But articles about chapters of books are inheritently not-notable (unless the book is a Koran or Bible or something like this) abakharev 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in this form: Having a discussion of one of Foucault's major talks is fine, but this really does look like a digest of the chapter, study notes. Foucault wrote a great deal, and this talk isn't really pivotal. Geogre 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom JianLi 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. (that is the book that this is a chapter of (not mentioned in nom). Frankly, no need to throw away good infomation, just put it where it belongs. says so after reading the article and finding the topic interesting —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is verifiable, well-referenced, and, with the addition of an adequate criticisms section, and other restructuring could easily be brought into compliance with the NPOV policy. Additionally, the article is notable because it demonstrates the role of Michel Foucault, Jean Danet, and Guy Hocquenghem in attempting to promote pedophilia, and relates the chapter to a pro-pedophilia petition that Michel Foucault had signed:

    The issue was brought to debate while a reform in the French Penal Code was under way in the Parliament. Many French intellectuals [1] - including Foucault, Danet and Hocquenghem - had signed a petition addressed to the Parliament in 1977 defending the decriminalization of all consented relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen.

    The article is quite useful in understanding the "intellectual" basis upon which pro-pedophilia movements that pose a continuing danger to public safety have attempted to justify their perversions. John254 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does not violate any Wikipedia policies. If a "criticisms" section is added, it must of course likewise satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. --LambiamTalk 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Surprisingly deep coverage of a lesser work of a highly influential philosopher but This article is surprisingly good is hardly a good criterion for deletion. Article is long enough to justify itself. To suggest Philosophy of Michael Foucault is indiscriminate information is just plain nuts. WilyD 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD and John 254. Wikipedia is Cliffsnotes sometimes. AdamBiswanger1 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Topic is encyclopedic as Foucault is a major philosopher. Article is well-referenced with no obvious fluff, and is split from parent article Michel Foucault because of size. Eagle's suggestion of merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 doesn't work because there's no article about that book at present. If one is written, then merging might be possible, though the article is maybe still too large for merging. Phr (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and hope that many similar articles are forthcoming. More important than the Dead Parrot Sketch, however much better-known that may be. Vizjim 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Foucault is significant, but this is a chapter. There should be an article on the book, perhaps, but Foucault is not at the same level as Hegel, and we haven't articles on all his works, nor on the level of Nietzsche. What is written is good, but it's far too summary, far too "remember this for the test," for my tastes. It's not actually localizing the philosophical themes. Just because Foucault is significant, that doesn't license misnamed, free floating summaries of his speeches. Geogre 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think there should be any limits on articles that are in the realm of academics, even if the result is a disproportionate amount of information on a second-tier philosopher (it's one of my soapboxes that I use over and over). If someone wants to write 30kb on an obscure conversation regarding a famous philosopher, that's fine with me. What harm is there in this? When we sit at our computers and wistfully imagine Wikipedia in 30 years, don't we all dream of having so much knowledge on a such an obscure yet dignified topic? AfD is for deleting articles like "List of guns in Halo 2", not anything with such intellectual merit as this.
      • And regarding the style of the article, I have some qualms about the style being a bit on the OR side ("main ideas of the text"), but this can be edited and toned down to read like any other enlightened and neutral explanation of a text. I'll probably do it myself at some point today. So, although the organization is a bit superficial and non-encyclopedic, it can be changed to fit quite well in our encyclopedia. AdamBiswanger1 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, This is a conversation broadcast on the radio. Where is any evidence this had any sort of broad implications beyond the initial broadcast? I've heard several nationally broadcast discussions of sexuality and law on morning radio broadcasts in the U.S. Should we start articles for all of those? Best case scenario for those wishing to retain this info would be to move this to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 and expand it beyond that one chapter. As a standalone article about a radio conversation with no evidence of any broader impact or implications it doesn't pass muster in my opinion (and Wikipedia should never be "cliff notes).--Isotope23 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Umm, the large, pile of citations in the article to other articles (in 4 languages) about that very conversation, is evidence that the conversation got far-reaching attention. Phr (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • From what I see it is by and large trivial mention in other works, one reprint (translation) and a mention in the context of a summary of “Politics, Philosophy, Culture”... which is where this article should be moved to if it is retained. I don't see any evidence that the "conversation got far-reaching attention..."--Isotope23 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't suppose that many philosophical works recieve as much attention as, say, Oops, I Did It Again, but that certainly does not limit their notability, especially being that it is from a well-known and highly notable philosopher. AdamBiswanger1 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Keep per WilyD, Phr and John 254. Very good article, notable subject, too bad its not Pokemon or it would never have gotten this many delete votes. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep An Encyclopedia should cover all unique and relevant information on every issue. This information is undoubtedly unique and Michel Foucault is a renowned philosopher. His opinions expressed in this chapter are really relevant to the debate about "abolition of age of consent laws", once he brings other point-of-views that nobody else has thought of. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
  • It doesn't matter if it's a chapter or a book or a whole collection of books. All information in Wikipedia should be subdivided into articles enough to show all different and relevant points of view. The relevance of this radio talk is evident. This should not be reduced or censored by any means, although (of course) it can be edited in other styles or lay-outs. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper, and this is not pokemon. It's smart, well-done, and encyclopedic. Themindset 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment To hide relevant information from the public is simply dishonest (no matter if it's right-wing or left-wing) and disqualifies the intentions of those who oppose the content of the text. One may not agree with Foucault, but at least one should agree that it is the right of other people to know what he said. My impression is that some people are desperatly seeking any motive to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others. I live in a country where a whole generation of intellectuals fighted against censorship during military dictatorship for over 20 years, so I know how it looks like. Paulo Andrade 23:45 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
It probly isn't anything so malicious - english speakers in general are typically fairly unaware of Foucault's importance. In this discussion Foucault is called less important than Nietzsche, or Hegel - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - his philosophy is referred to as an indiscriminate collection of information - anglos just don't know much about him because he isn't as accessible as Hume WilyD 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I know it isn't really the place, but you cannot be seriously suggesting that Foucault even enters the same order of significance as Hegel, can you? Vizjim 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, realistically he probly lies somewhere between Hegel and Nietzsche ... but he's not been buried long enough to accrete the amount of influence that either of them have - importance is a different issue. WilyD 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sarcasm, Yes, Paulo Andrade... I voted delete or move to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 "to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others". How did you ever figure out my sinister master plan? Mwa-ha-ha! (end sarcasm)... Seriously though... read WP:AGF Paulo before making wild unfounded accusations.--Isotope23 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WilyD and John254. I hope the nom isn't actually suggesting that only religous texts are worthy of thorough examination. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After looking at the talk itself, I've moved a little closer to Geogre's view that the article is mostly summary and could be made shorter, but that's just an editorial issue, the topic is still fine and deletion is not appropriate. Editorial issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, not afd. Simply moving the article is inappropriate since it's a split-out from Michel Foucault about the specific topic. Further editing at Michel Foucault might change that, but not something for afd to deal with. I'd rather leave it up to the article's regular editors who know something about the subject matter.

    I'm not worried about having an article about a chapter of a book in and of itself. We have lots of perfectly good multi-page articles (e.g. Ozymandias) about 14-line poems. Also, we can't count on the talk being online all the time (for that matter, the reader might be using an offline copy of wikipedia), so having a non-copyvio summary of the talk in the encyclopedia helps the parent article considerably. See The Saga Begins for another example. Phr (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep-The article is relevant, informative, well-written, and notable. I would hate to see such good information on an oft-repressed subject deleted. -Timzor 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - One last information: in Wikipedia, Foucault has articles in 35 different languages, Nietzsche has in 55 and Hegel in 41. By contrast, Durkheim has in 31 and Baudrillard in 20 languages. I believe all of them are important. Paulo Andrade 22:11, 26 July 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep this verifiable and well-referenced article per WilyD and John 254. Yamaguchi先生 02:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well how about this. Glad I stumbled on this as I can now eliminate the identical text from Age of consent reform which is one of the many places where our new pal has been busy busy. So I would say Keep and tag for cleanup, primarily a severe pruning. Its notable enough for an article (partly, as mentioned above, as another demonstration of why Foucalt is now mostly ignored); it's not notable enough for an article nearly this long. And yes, WP:PAW will get to it (sigh). Not necessarily this year, though. We have many busy busy busy friends. Herostratus 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Limit the content? What purpose does that serve other than attempting to ensure some sort of notability to information ratio that cannot be attained, and is in itself a value judgment? I say the most we should trim down is to the 30kb limit. AdamBiswanger1 13:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, because its encyclopedia, and after all it is just a radio talk rather than a large body of work. An overview, with links to the full text and related texts ought to be sufficient for researchers. But anyway that's a discussion for another day, on the article's talk page. Herostratus 16:00, 30 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law_edc0.html"