Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child cannibalism

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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Child cannibalism

Child_cannibalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This article should be deleted.

1. No assertion of notability (which is extremely dubious). How is child cannibalism in any way distinct from ordinary cannibalism?
2. Insufficient citation of sources.
3. Original Research. Violates Wikipedia:Attribution
4. POSSIBLY a prank article fabricated by a trolling organization.--[[User:Francisx|Francisx]] 05:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On edit, I'd like to retract the trolling claim; I was confused by frequent vandalism to the article by deliberate trolls.--Francisx 08:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - There is a difference - and many cases reported of this phenomena occurring, where people eat either very young children or fetuses, believing them to contain nutrients not found in other sources. This has also been portrayed in fictional works. That some content is not sourced is not a criteria for deletion. I will try and find more sources in the meantime. Sfacets 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• The only instance cited in the article is Swift's satire, A Modest Proposal, which isn't about "child cannibalism" as an actual phenomenon. Swift uses cannibalism purely as a satirical device, in order to satirize 18th century Anglo-Irish economics and politics. "Child cannibalism" as a hypothetical literary phenomenon isn't even mentioned in WP's perfectly good article written about A Modest Proposal. There may well be a long tradition of writers using child cannibalism as a literary device but, if so, it (a) isn't indicated in the article and (b) needs to be written about by some third party to avoid being OR. --Francisx 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As far as sources go, the first two debunk the idea of child cannibalism, essentially discussing blood libel and the second two go to the same isolated incident. I don't see how this merits an article. Should probably be deleted or if there's anything worth salvaging, merged with Blood libel.Chunky Rice 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Chunky Rice pointed out, the first two sources argue against the article; Swift's mention is spurious, as it was used as a satirical device & not evidence thereof, don't really see anything worth merging, but possible redirect to Cannibalism. 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is badly written but it does make the argument that there is a concept of child cannibalism. This article needs work but has potential. --Richard 09:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & expand. Cannibals prefer children (given the choice) as their flesh is likely more tender and succulent. One of the latest, or fetal cannibalism in PRChina examples are two recent real world. Fictional representations (most recently in Hannibal Rising) and accusations of (eg. Aborted Babies Sold As Health Food for $10 ) could be a subsection. Tantalus, Zeus, european folklore, blood libel. Theres enough on child cannibalism to justify its own article. D Mac Con Uladh 16:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  So expand it then. THis article is right on the brink. A little bit of expansion would make it more obviously a keeper. If it was any worse than it is now, it would be an obvious 'delete'. So, push it further into the 'keeper' category by adding to it. --Richard 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't deny that incidents of child cannibalism have occurred. But unless someone can point me towards a source that isn't an isolated incident or simply blood libel, I don't see how it can support an article by itself. As is, I'd be inclined to delete the paragraph about the Chinese, since there's no source material supporting it. That's blood libel.Chunky Rice 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  Deleting the paragraph about the Chinese because there's no source material supporting it is justifiable. However, I should comment that blood libel is an encyclopedic topic and so the claim should be kept if the source is notable EVEN IF the claim is really blood libel. We can report on blood libel if it is notable and sourced. (strange concept here but, if a major publication or notable scholar reports child cannibalism then child cannibalism is notable and should be included as encyclopedic EVEN IF it is generally considered to be untrue, ). The critical thing would be characterize it as blood libel and provide a source for the characterization.

• You can be WP:BOLD and delete the offending passage if it is not sourced. However, it would be more courteous to tag it with a {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} tag for a few days before deleting it.

  --Richard 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  Sure, but if the incident is untrue, shouldn't we put it in the blood libel article instead of one called Child Cannibalism? That's why I don't like this article. Everything that's in it has a better home somewhere else.Chunky Rice 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  It could be in both articles. One question is whether it adds anything of value to this article. An even more important question is whether the value of this article hinges on the blood libel and whether the blood libel is noteworthy. I don't think the value of this article hinges on the blood libel (and thus the article can be kept on the basis of other points such as the mention in Hannibal Rising). I'm not sure whether the alleged incident is noteworthy. I'll leave that for others to debate. --Richard 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't get it. The article you listed about the Noida serial murders doesn't concern cannibalism in the slightest. One of the oddities is that (1) no source has yet been produced describing child cannibalism as a phenonemon (let alone using the term), and (2) no specific instance of child cannibalism has been documented in the article, talk page or AFD page. I'm sure somebody at some point has eaten a child, but given the content we have, it seems ridiculous to have a WP article. And what is this claptrap claiming "cannibals prefer children?" Is that a fact? Do you have a source documenting it? This whole affair seems silly and demonstrably un-encyclopedic.--Francisx 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment what does that book reference say about it? The news links aren't very useful, they are instances of it, where as this article seems to summarize what it is. --Quirex 19:43, 16 March 2007 (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.