Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 23

Adult-child sex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Twice as many delete votes with well argued reasons does not constitute a keep vote under any reasonable grounds, SqueakBox 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The close was well-reasoned, and indeed this was a very rough AFD to close. It's good enough for me. Is this about having wanted him to bold the words "no consensus"? In his rationale he explains that there wasn't much of a consensus to keep as a standalone article, there just wasn't much of a consensus to do anything else, either. --W.marsh 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not my intention to criticise the closing admin (that isn't why I posted here) but no consensus would be the very least I would have expected given the afd results, SqueakBox 15:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • He said that in his close... the bolded word "keep" verses "no consensus" is really not that important or worth haggling over, what he said in the closing statement is somewhat more meaningful. There's really no difference between a close that bolds the word "keep" and one that bolds the words "no consensus", that there is a difference is a common misnomer, but it doesn't really matter. They are both decisions to keep the content and article name. --W.marsh 15:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • And I dispute that is the appropriate reading of the afd. Please see User talk:SqueakBox#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex. I think when twice the number of people want to either delete or merge than want to keep that a DRV is appropriate as a way to overturn the decision, SqueakBox 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm just saying changing the bolded word to "no consensus" doesn't accomplish anything meaningful. If you want the article name and content deleted, that's something different. --W.marsh 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • The meaningful distinction between keep and no consensus is the period as to when people consider it appropriate to revisit the article at AfD. That always comes down to the actual debate in the first AfD and the reason given for the close, but not necessarily the "keep" or "no consensus" wording in the AfD close. That is why DRV has not, to my knowledge, been used to change a closer's wording from "keep" to "no consensus." -- Jreferee t/c 16:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Hold your noses and cover your eyes 'cause Wikipedia is not censored. Obviously, all "Adult-child sex" anywhere in the world throughout the history of the world cannot be said to be consider "child sexual abuse" by all people throughout time. The Adult-child sex article would seem to be part of Wikipedia's coverage that includes Adult-adolescent male sex. In reality, child sexual abuse is a content fork of Adult-child sex and Adult-adolescent male sex. Child sexual abuse is an article whose subject is a POV - point of view. Such articles are permitted per Articles whose subject is a POV. As for Child sexuality, that article addresses an individual's feelings, not acting on those feelings with an adult. As the closer noted, the article contains useful, NPOV information that is not found elsewhere. This is because the topic - Adult-child sex - cannot be adequately by any of suggested merge articles listed in that AfD. The AfD discussion brought out biased reasons to delete the article and the closer was correct to focus on those parts of the discussion that focused on Wikipedia article standards. -- Jreferee t/c 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse afd is a discussion not a vote and as such the consideration for closing should be based on policy. Child sex abuse would actually be a daughter article of this as its about the various illegal acts such that merging with this would imply that its is/has and always will be solely an illegal act, ignoring the psychological/historical discussions views. The question of no-consensus vs keep doest alter anything except a perceived grace period between potential AfD nominations Gnangarra 16:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think what SqueakBox is arguing here is that this article should be deleted more so than he is arguing for a change in the name of its close. I disagree that this article is a part of Wikipedia's coverage that includes Adult-adolescent male sex. Adult-adolescent male sex may include legal acts of sexual intimacy between adolescent males and adults, considering that the Age of consent is ages 16 to 18 often, and studies have been done that show adolescents of that age can consent to sex with a legal adult without being mentally/emotionally harmed. However, studies across the world widely document that "sex with" children under the age of 12, which the Adult-child sex article focuses more so on, considering that it isn't uncommon for sex between adolescents and adults to be allowed, is extremely harmful to children, and is titled as child sexual abuse...as brought up in Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7#Adult-child sex. And while the article Adult-child sex may not focus on the term pedophilia, the ages that the Adult-child sex article suggest may not be harmful to children are completely of the ages that constitute pedophilia. 16-year-olds are considered adults in some parts of the world. 6-year-olds are not. And mentally/biologically, 16-year-olds are different, of course. I honestly don't see a reason for the article Adult-child sex and I do feel that it is not that different than the article on child sexual abuse. The Adult-child sex article incorporates mention of Age of consent, even though Age of consent usually does not apply to 12-year-olds and it states that what is known as child sexual abuse may not be that in every case, even though it is known as child sexual abuse in every case... I'm not for censorship on this matter, which is part of the reason I may not have voted to Delete or Keep this article, but at the same time...I cannot see why this article is needed, as it addresses the same topic as child sexual abuse, but mentions how a minority feels that it isn't child sexual abuse. Addressing the minority view may warrant an article on Wikipedia, but this is addressed on Wikipedia in the article Pro-pedophile activism. I have watched the discussion on this topic from both sides and different aspects of those sides...and nothing can convince me that this article is needed. I completely understand SqueakBox's feelings about this, and with how many people either wanted to delete or merge this article, I honestly expected him to bring this to a deletion review, as stated on his talk page. Flyer22 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Flyer22, you gave two reasons why there's no need for the article:
• 1. The article's purpose would be to document the same subject as the article on child sexual abuse. You said that "studies across the world widely document that 'sex with' children under the age of 12, which the Adult-child sex article focuses more so on, considering that it isn't uncommon for sex between adolescents and adults to be allowed, is extremely harmful to children, and is titled as child sexual abuse..."
• If you read Wikipedia's article on adult-child sex, you'll see that David Finkelhor who is "Director of Crimes against Children Research Center, Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory and Professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire ... has been studying the problems of child victimization, child maltreatment and family violence since 1977 ... is well known for his conceptual and empirical work on the problem of child sexual abuse, reflected in publications such as Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse (Sage, 1986) and Nursery Crimes (Sage, 1988)" said that "The belief that sex with adults causes harm to children is often offered as the most compelling argument against such relationships, and is the basis for much current concern about sexual abuse. This paper argues for the importance of a stronger ethical position, less dependent on an empirical presumption that is not firmly established. It is suggested that basing the prohibition of adult-child sex on the premise that children are incapable of full and informed consent will provide a more solid and consistent approach to the problem." We didn't need him to say this, because this is easy to find out just by thinking. It has been done on this section already. No one has proven that it's impossible that there be positive sexual relationsips between children and adults, and no one has proven that a sexual relationship could be inherently harmful.
• 2.0.You say the article's purpose would be to be able to present minority views on the subject, and this wouldn't be necessary, as "the minority view may warrant an article on Wikipedia, but this is addressed on Wikipedia in the article pro-pedophile activism."
• The article on LGBT social movements is not about homosexuality nor about homosexuality (the word is used, according to the article, for "both the attraction or sexual behavior between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation"), and the article about pro-pedophile activism is not about pedophilia nor about adult-child sex. The article about LGBT movements is about a movement, and the article about pro-pedophile activism is also just about a movement.
• Ten percent of Canadians explicitly said that pedophilia (by which they obviously meant sexual relationships between adults and children) is not an immoral behavior. 34% of low income earning Canadians didn't say pedophilia (adult-child sex) was an immoral behavior. 30% of Canadian students didn't say that pedophilia is an immoral behavior. In one region of Canada, there are more people who think that extra-marital affairs is immoral than there are people who think that pedophilia is immoral. There's a tie between extra-marital affairs and pedophilia in another region. Those people are not pro-pedophile activists. Is Sartre a pro-pedophile activist? Are Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman (the authors of Rind et al) pro-pedophile activists? No, and their views and arguments can not be included in the article on pro-pedophile activism unless true pro-pedophile activists use them as arguments. The views are notable by themselves, however, regardless of whether activists mention them or not. A.Z. 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Do not endorse. A.Z., while this article may not be about the topic of pro-pedophile activism, I do not agree that it is not about pedophilia. And I almost (ALMOST) cannot believe that you stated that no one has proven that "a sexual relationship between" adults and children could be inherently harmful. It has been proven over and over again that "a sexual relationship between" adults and children is inherently harmful. And, no, don't ask me to grab some references for that, because, frankly, it can be found anywhere on the internet or in your local library. It has also been well-documented how most pedophiles were sexually molested as children themselves, and that is no coincidence, which is another reason I cannot see how anyone can argue that sex "between children and adults" isn't inherently harmful. The idea that a child can consent to sex is baffling whenever I see it suggested in this debate. A child's mind isn't as developed as a mid-to-late adolescent or legal adult's mind; their cognitive skills are far more under-developed than that of a mid-to-late adolescent or adult, a fact. I've been around children quite often, and know that a 6-year-old cannot consent to sex, considering that they are basically the most gullible age group around, 5 to 11-year-olds, but especially 4 to 8-year-olds. I feel that a lot of people here know that. You tell a 6-year-old to do this or that, they most likely do it. You ask a 6-year-old do they want to do something, you can easily play reverse psychology on them. Not so much with a mid-to-late adolescent or adult. Frankly, any argument made that a child (an actual child) can consent to sex, children who usually want to do anything to please the adults they are around, is going to get a scoff from me. Canadians can state what they will. I mean, their Age of consent is lower than that of the United States (where I'm from), and their feelings will not change my mind on this subject...that I see no need for this article. I've heard your argument for this article more than once, of course, and I simply do not agree with you. Flyer22 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you a lot for replying to my argument. Seriously. I really wish to keep discussing this. First of all, you said above that you disagree with David Finkelhor, since he said there's no firm empirical evidence of harm caused to children. You also disagree with Rind et al.
• 1.Harm.I am very interested in knowing what kinds of arguments people use to say that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is inherently harmful. Unfortunately, you didn't provide any source. Why should my local library have all the arguments, and Wikipedia not? Why isn't there aný article saying why people think that all sexual activity of adults with children is harmful? I have seen this kind of thing quite a few times on Wikipedia. People say "it's patently obvious that sex between adults and children is extremely harmful! There are thousands of scientific studies showing this! I can barely believe you are arguing otherwise!" But Wikipedia doesn't say anywhere that sexual activity between adults and children is inherently harmful. In fact, I don't think I ever heard an explanation on', if it is harmful why it is harmful. I asked on the talk page of the WikiProject and now I ask here: which studies are those? No one showed me the studies, and Wikipedia has almost no content on this. I want to know which studies there are. I do not intuitively think that adult-child sex is inherently any more harmful or abusive than an adult hugging a child. There are a lot of issues to be discussed regarding whether sexual activity between adults and children is inherently harmful, and there's no discussion about it here, and you, by taking it for granted that it is, doesn't even allow me to take my own conclusions. "It has also been well-documented how most pedophiles were sexually molested as children themselves?" How in the world would a person document that? Did they go out on the street and shouted "who here is a pedophile", or put an ad on the paper? I want the sources. If they are so good, they should be able to convince me. If they are so good, they should just be added to the article on adult-child sex, so Wikipedia can say "scientific studies X, Y, and Z have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that consensual, happy, moral, non-abusive sexual activities between adults and children is impossible. The reson for this is A". Or "the reason for this is unknown".
• 2.Consent. To what could children possibly consent, if not to sex? Sex seems to be one of the most instinctive activities for me, along with feeding. Yes, children can't consent to get married, because they can't have a clue about what marriage is. But sex is just whether you like it or not, whether it feels good or not. It is immensely easy to abuse a child by thousands of different means, sexual or not, and I feel this should not be our point, because we are arguing over the possibility, not how likely it would be. I also don't think it's important for us to try to reach a conclusion soon on how abusive sexual activity with children is in absolute terms: I think a comparison with other kinds of activities that adults have with children is enough. It doesn't look to me that hugging a child so you can feel all the pleasure of hugging a child (and it is very very pleasurable to hug a child, in a non-sexual manner), and all the pleasure of knowing that the child is feeling pleasure, is inherently any less or more abusive than having sex with them.
• 3.Canadians. If you think they are wrong, provide the sources. A.Z. 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A.Z., I didn't necessarily state that I disagree with Rind et al. I am simply agreeing with the many studies out there that "sex between adults and children" is inherently abusive. "In one such study in 2001, researchers at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine and University College London reviewed the case notes of 225 male sex abusers and 522 other male patients being treated in a London clinic for sex offenders and sexual deviants. They found that abusers had themselves been victims of sexual violence considerably more often than the patients who had not committed sex abuse."[1] People say, "it's patently obvious that sex between adults and children is extremely harmful! There are thousands of scientific studies showing this! I can barely believe you are arguing otherwise!" because it's all TRUE.[2]
• I don't have to "entertain" you with the fact that "sex between adults and children" is inherently harmful/abusive, when it can be found anywhere, when, as I stated before, most pedophiles were sexually abused as children, which is proof enough. You ask how in the world would a person document that? Did they go out on the street and shout "who here is a pedophile"... No, they (usually) don't go out on the street and ask the pedophile. They document this by asking the pedophile who is already locked up (or was locked up), and most of these pedophiles stated/state how they were sexually abused by an uncle, a father, or older cousin.[3] And that they hated it. I strongly object to you comparing "sex between an adult and a child" as the same thing as a hug. I have seen more than enough sexually abused children, seen their suffering, seen how they wish revenge on their abuser. Many pedophiles have stated that they wish that they could go back in time and stop what happened to them, as if they are blaming themselves for the sexual abuse against them or wish that they could somehow get someone to stop it (back then). Unfortunately, we cannot time travel...yet. All we can do is try and protect as many children from pedophiles as possible.
• You say that a child can consent to sex because they know if they like it (sex) or not? It has already been well-documented that the fact that the human body is designed to like sexual pleasure is used against them by pedophiles. When Richard Yuill of Glasgow University challenged the much-accepted stance that sex "between adult and children" is inherently abusive, he was critcized by many child abuse experts. "Andrew Durham, author of the book Young Men Surviving Child Sexual Abuse said victims of abuse sometimes reported positive experiences, but this was often a result of manipulation by the abuser, or simply a coping mechanism."[4] "When I work with people who have been abused it often feels like you're talking to the abuser in the child's head," he said. Furthermore, Liz Kelly, professor of sexualized violence at London Metropolitan University, said: "A lot of young men and almost all young women in our study who had intercourse with an adult when they were a child regarded it negatively."
• So again I say that a child being able to feel sexual pleasure, which every healthy human body can, even those of asexuals, does not mean that a child can consent to sex...or that it is not abuse. Yes, some of these pedophiles that were sexually molested as children admit to having gotten sexual pleasure during the abuse, which is why they felt/feel guilty about what was being done to them, but they also stated that they hated/hate their abusers all the same, and even more for any sexual pleasure that their bodies were manipulated into feeling. Most state how they know that it was not consensual sex in any way, because they would have agreed to almost anything at that age. Asking a 6-year-old do they want to have sex is like asking a 6-year-old do they want to watch a porno movie. Just because they say yes, does not mean that it is not harmful to them. Furthermore, most normal people wouldn't want to have sex with a 6-year-old, so that tells me that another reason people state "sex between adults and children" as being inherently abusive has to do with the biology of human beings rather than social attitudes toward it. Most (heterosexual) men would be looking for a woman with child-bearing hips, not a little 6-year-old girl with no secondary sex characteristics holding her teddy bear. A normal gay man, like straight women, would be looking for a healthy adult male who gives off the vibe of livelihood, not a little boy with no secondary sex characteristics holding his teddy bear. I've read and studied much research on "sex between adults and children" (though it's usually not called that), and all of it, every aspect combined together, even the ones that state that it may not be inherently abusive, and my experience with the sexual abuse topic, leads me to believe (know) that it is inherently abusive. Anyway, whether I feel that this article is needed or not, I still don't feel that it is needed. Flyer22 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the article "The basis of the abused abuser theory of pedophilia: A further elaboration on an earlier study." The other three I dismiss, as they're just a lot of personal opinions. A.Z. 04:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• All, both sides, can be called opinions. But they are "opinions" by experts in this field. And most experts are of the stance of what I cited above. Even a lot of pedophiles are. I was going to respond to the post you just posted before this one. In fact, I did type up a quick response to it, since it did anger me, but apparently I wasn't quick enough, since you withdrew it before I could post to it. Thus I decided not to post my response to that. Basically, you and I very much disagree on this subject. At least, we try our best not to sound condescending to each other while we debate. Flyer22 05:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I would like more data, you know. I would like to know what questions they asked to which people and how they got to their conclusions. In these three cases, there are basically just conclusions, so your options are either to believe them or not to believe them. I didn't mean to anger you before. I don't really know what it would mean to be condescending, so, if you have the time, I would appreciate if you explained this to me. All these opinions of mine on adult-child sex made me very afraid that people will dislike me because of them. I didn't like you mentioning the teddy bear, but this didn't make me angry at you. A.Z. 05:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• A.Z., I couldn't help but anger at what you stated in that removed post. I won't elaborate on that any further since we kind of moved away from that. I must admit that I cannot grasp what the problem was/is with my teddy bear reference, but moving past that as well... What usually takes place in the kind of questions that child abuse experts and sexual abuse therapists ask men who are pedophiles and have been sexually abused as children (pedophiles are usually men, I'm sure that you know) are of their sexual feelings at the time of the abuse. Difficult questions for most of these men, such as did they get any sexual pleasure from it. A lot of them, even at the age of 32 or 46, are afraid to say yes because they feel that it implies that they liked what was done to them, when, in reality, they did not. It's like some of their bodies responded positively to the sexual abuse, but their minds did not, while others may have had both physically painful and mental experiences with the sexual abuse. Researchers will document a lot of these men breaking down in tears, swearing that they don't know why they are pedophiles, others feeling that they would have never been a pedophile if it weren't for the sexual abuse they suffered as a child, though a good number are quick not to try and blame their criminal actions of sex abuse on their past. All in all, a lot of them just want help. And then there are the ones who are not pedophiles...but were sexually abused as children. If these men are heterosexual, they can and do usually have a more difficult time with the fact that they were sexually abused. What is known to be stated often in these cases is how the child (the men when they were children) felt that they really had no control over the situation when they were those ages. By those ages, I'm generally speaking of 4 to 8-year-olds, even though lower and higher than that are subject to sexual abuse as well, of course. I would go into all the specifics of this, but it's too much to state, and this specific topic is a little away from the topic of whether to keep this article or delete. I know you want me to provide some data that you can look over, but I don't have any of that stuff with me at this moment, and what I stated above about the kind of questions asked of people who were sexually abused as children is valid (women who were sexually abused as children are asked these same questions), though I didn't list all the types of questions and what goes on with that. Anyway, I'll see you around, of course.Flyer22 06:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. The closing admin made some good points explaining his decision. He appeared to favor merging, but was dismayed that few had proposed that altrenative. We can debate a merge without need to overturn the AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• do not endorse - either deletion, or merging the content to the appropriate abuse article. Nothing here or in the Afd makes a case that the article is not talking about abuse of children by adults. --Rocksanddirt 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1.The unverfiability of the claim that there can't be sexual relationships between adults and children that are not abusive makes a case that the article is not talking about abuse of children by adults. The article about abortion is not called "the morally acceptable act of a woman deciding what to do with her own body" nor "baby murder". It would be called abortion even if all people believed it to be a morally acceptable act, and even if all people believed it to be murder of babies. The morality or not of abortion is just a quality of abortion, just like the morality or immorality, legality or illegality, and abusiveness or not of adult-child sex is just a quality of an activity that consists of "sexual things" being done involving a child and an adult, as abortion is "the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death", regardless of whether it is baby murder or not.
• 2.Even if it were a verifiable fact that sexual relationships between adults and children which are not abusive can't exist, still there could be a fictional activity such as a non-harmful, non-abusive sexual relationship between adults and children. There are people who think there is such an activity and their opinion is notable (note that, even if there were no such opinion, argument one above would still be valid). A.Z. 23:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As for this statement, well, I have nothing different to state than what I just stated above at this very moment. Flyer22 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by closing admin. I just wanted to highlight a couple of points made above. As Flyer22 says, and I said in my close, a number of the delete votes objected to the name, not the content. And as Will says, a merge may well make sense, but can be debated at the article talk page. I'd also like to ask those who participated in the AfD and are also participating here to try to keep their comments short and to the point (which is, basically, the procedural validity or lack thereof of my close), and not make this a repeat of the AfD. Thank you. Chick Bowen 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - there was no consensus to delete the article. Not only this, but policies suggest that value neutral articles such as this one should be the starting point of "phenomenon" articles such as CSA. Sure, CSA is a large topic, and should demand a large article, but the present and historical manifestations of the activities concerned also demand a value neutral article. Whilst killing is a rather top-down process embodied in law as murder, manslaughter and euthanasia, the subject matter has been subject to much more controversy over the years, and thus does not merit necessary interpretation as a top-down act of power abuse. Readers should be left to make their own minds up. 82.45.15.121 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as no consensus to delete. The main argument being made in the DRV seems to be wanting to censor... Smashville 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely disagree. The main argument was not about censorship at all. And neither was the one I just now made above. Flyer22 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete votes were more in count, but all those said the same thing without explaining vote, and nobody described their claim of POV. Any content/title/merge can be discussed in talk page. As far as we are reviewing perticular AfD discussion here, not reviewing article, closing of afd can be endorsed easily. We certainly can give more time for this article to develop, before and if to delete. Lara_bran 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The closer's decision seems to be well-reasoned. This is not the place to flame each other over the subject matter of the article. Pleae restrict all flames to whether or not the VfD decision was correct. --Carnildo 07:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The article contains some sourced information not found elsewhere, and nothing about the closer's decision precludes renaming or merging. Enrico Dirac 02:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The closer seemed to ignore that the main deletion argument here was that this is a POV fork. This article exists separately from Child sexual abuse so that the viewpoint that adult-child sex is not always abusive could be advanced more than was possible at the other article. A.Z., the author, was familiar with the situation when he created this article: look at the early versions and the purpose becomes very clear. This is now better sourced and attempts a neutral tone, but it is nonetheless accurately described as a POV fork. The title is not the whole issue, as the closure seemed to think, but it is definitely part of the issue. But at the core, the reason to delete here is POV fork. I have no objection to the text being available, but we don't let POV forks sit around until a consensus is formed to merge them back or move them, we delete them. It's about forcing people to work together on one article, not letting separate articles exist to house separate points of view on the same topic, and that should not have been dismissed as merely a dispute over the title. Mangojuice^talk 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• CommentThanks for that Mangojuice, you put it better than I could have and I endorse your comments 100%, SqueakBox 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• The accusations above are not true. My intent was to motivate other editors to write an article on a topic I know little about, and in which I am interested. I feel I should have an informed opinion on this. I had to start the article with some information, otherwise it would be deleted. The first version had the first useful information that I found searching for adult-child sex in Google. I have added at least other five sentences and at least three references to the article after the first versions. I have no interest in the article lacking any information. A.Z. 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• endorseThe closer made a difficult and correct decision. As I see it, the article would have been unquestionably kept on any other topic, and the opposition to it was based on the disagreement with one of the views presented. It was not a POV fork, but an attempt at a balanced presentation--it said that a small minority view was in fact a small minority view. That is the way to handle suitable wight. If it was insufficiently balanced, then it needed editing. There are those who try to insert as many articles as possible that will have some tendency to advance their particular view on this subject--I don't like that approach when the articles are unwarranted, and I've !voted to delete a good number of them. But I don;t like the approach of those who try to keep them out when they are warranted. that's both POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

• Comment. I didn't try to keep this article out "when it is warranted"... I don't feel that this article is warranted, is the main issue here. Flyer22 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• That's your opinion, DGG, but the opinion of a pretty strong majority of the users in the debate was that this was a POV fork. I can't see why that should be ignored, it is not a non-issue. Mangojuice^talk 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the closer got it right - and the reminder of a vote count should be met with a reminder that afd is not a vote. This article approaches a difficult topic from a very different perspective from child sexual abuse. In the latter article, which assumes its conclusion deals with legal and health matters. There is insufficient attention to why a person 18-years-plus-a-day old having sex with a 17 years-plus-364-days old is "child sexual abuse" in California but not considered so in Spain or much of the rest of the world judging by the map. Another failing of the child sexual abuse article is its failure to convey why all the generalities in that article about medical implications apply when the same acts engaged in 2 days later after the younger person's 18th birthday apparently don't lead to any of those implications - which generally defy common sense, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, lacking in the child sexual abuse article. Certainly, these two articles can stand together. Carlossuarez46 17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment failures in the CSA article are not a reason create a POV fork but you have offered some good insights into changes that should be made to the CSA article although they would be more appropriate at the CSA talk page. When an article is lacking we don't create another article we improve the original, and all your comments are highly relevant to the CSA article, though I fail to see why a POV fork should stand alongside a legitimate article just cos it could be improved, SqueakBox 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. An Elaboration on SqueakBox's comment to this part.. Everyone here knows that a 17-year-old having sex with an 18-year-old is not child sexual abuse (not unless that 17-year-old is mentally-disabled and the 18-year-old took advantage of that), and it may be called statutory rape in California, but people know that that (the 18-year-old and 17-year-old, when the 17-year-old is of normal mental reasoning) is not child sexual abuse. In most places in the United States, the person has to be at least three years older than their sexual partner for it to even be considered possibly sexually harmful...if that partner is below the age of consent while that person isn't. There being "insufficient attention to why a person 18-years-plus-a-day old having sex with a 17 years-plus-364-days old is 'child sexual abuse'" can be addressed in the Age of consent article. I don't believe that there is insufficient attention on that matter anyway. It's clear that that issue has to do more with law rather than the 17-year-old truly not being able to consent to sex, especially with her 18-year-old boyfriend. Different states (and countries) draw the line at different ages, as we all know, but those ages are usually drawn to mean that you have to be ages 16 to 18. The article Adult-child sex isn't focusing on teenagers having sex with other teenagers, or a 19-year-old guy having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. The Adult-child sex article is focusing on adults "having sex with" actual children, children who you will not find at all close to the legal age (age of consent). This article does not and should not stand to address why an 18-year-old guy may get in trouble for having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Sex experts and therapists don't call that child sexual abuse, and this article acting as though an 18-year-old guy having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend could be considered the same as a 24-year-old man "having sex with" a 6-year-old girl is completely deceptive and even more reason that this article shouldn't exist if it tries to incorporate such. This article is about "adult-child" sex, not about how age of consent laws may hamper a teenage love affair. Flyer22 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn for no consensus. It should not be on the record that the community consensus (what is supposed to guide AfD closures) was behind a "keep" for this article -- even the closing admin admits that it wasn't. This may seem like nit-picking, but the establishment of community consensus as penultimate mandate for Wikipedia means that consensus should not be declared where there is no clear or recognizable consensus. After the discussion at AfD, my thoughts on this are that it needs a complete rewrite and consideration for a move, even though I argued for deletion at the AfD. That's what I think should happen with this article, and I think that is the mandate that came out of the AfD. In any case, since the clear majority of "!votes" were not keep, to say "result was keep" is to blatantly disregard the principles of consensus. The record shouldn't say something that isn't true. - Che Nuevara 13:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As you say, I said in my close that there was no consensus for specific action. Are you objecting to the word I chose to put in bold? I really don't see that as a big deal. If that's the way people are going to read these closes, then for complex AfDs I'm going to stop putting any word in bold at all. Chick Bowen 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Many a time I have seen "no consensus" bolded in an AfD closing. While no consensus generally defaults to keep, I don't think that keep should be used for no consensus, as it implies a community endorsement that is nonexistent. I don't fault you for this, as, like I said, you accurately summed up the discussion in your closing. But one of the problems of the AfD system is that people have a tendency to take the "result" given by the closing admin in hand. Unfortunately, that's the way people do read these closes, even if you don't mean them that way and some people (myself included, I like to think) understand that. I acknowledge the fact that closing an AfD, especially a highly disputed one, can be very complex, and I appreciate that. I just get uncomfortable at the appearance or assertion of consensus where none exists. I realize you didn't mean it this way, but I fear that's the way people will take it. - Che Nuevara 23:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep, but perhaps rephrase it as no consensus, default to keep or something similar, to address the concerns raised here. The question to consider is not whether we like the fact that adult-child sex exists, but whether and how to document its existence. Child sexual abuse can cover a portion of the topic, but not all of it; Several articles cover portions of the topic, but each views the subject within a particular framework, not holistically. --Ssbohio 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz territory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

closed as No consensus (defaulting to keep), with the statement ..the keep arguments are affected by the lack of reliable sources.. after querying with the closing admin about this the response was that others who expressed delete saw something in the article, though they still said delete. With this case the questions on WP:V/WP:RS were unanswered as was the question of WP:HOAX. The fundamental requirement of Verifiability is or should be paramount, whatever the numbers If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Gnangarra 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Serious questions have been raised about the reliability of sources and allegations that the article is purely a hoax or, at best, propaganda. All these questions remain unanswered. I know the closing admin closed in good faith, but I feel keeping a probable hoax article for the sake of vote counting and a hardline interpretation of the GFDL undermines our credibility. Sarah 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It seems that the article was kept without giving due regard to the actual arguments made concerning sources and the fact that the region does not exist according to any known authority. Rather, there is a separatist movement among some Iranian Arabs who claim a certain territory as their own - That movement is adequately addressed in the Iranian Arabs article. There are, however, no third-party sources that back-up a claim of territorial existence.--Strothra 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (as closer) - It wasn't my intention to simply count votes or propose a specific interpretation of the GfDL. My understanding was that there was certainly no consensus to keep the article in its current form, but also not to throw away everything at once. I won't endorse or overturn myself, but am really sorry if this comes across as danger to the integrity of the project.--Tikiwont 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position. Personally, I didn't mean to really push the merge idea once I realized that none of the information concerning Iranian Arabs was cited and thus unusable. Part of the problem, I think, was with my initial nom. --Strothra 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Sarah. Being charitable, the article seems like unverifiable original research. The only reasonable thing we can do with material like this is to throw it away. If it were included in another article, rather than a standalone one, it would not, I hope, have lasted as long as the AfD did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closing admin is correct.There was no consensus to throw everything away immediately. It is also conspiracy theorizing to say the article is a "probable"WP:HOAX as there is no indication at all that the article's initiator nor the sources he/she and others use are "attempt(ing) to trick an audience". Mysticpair 22:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: User:Mysticpair has made no edits outside this DRV issue and has been blocked by another admin as, a "Single purpose troll, no edits, deleted or otherwise, to suggest that this is a good faith account". [5] Sarah 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keeping of article. The closing admin was actually being conservative. If I'd closed the AfD I would have said the consensus was keep. There does not appear to be any reason to either delete or merge this article.--Alabamaboy 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No reason to delete a fictitious item that is claimed to exist primarily by militant sources that clearly do not meet reliable source guidelines? --Strothra 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no proof of this being a ficticious article. Of course everything must be sourced, but this disucssion isn't about that, only the deletion of the article. As for the accuracy of the article, hash that out on the article's talk page.--Alabamaboy 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, I concur with Sarah and Strothra here. If this isn't a hoax then it's cetainly not properly verifiable from independent sources. Guy (Help!) 06:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but purge anything that is not properly referenced - which may well mean reducing the article to a stub. A quick google search shows reliable sources indicating there is an area, or at least a city by that name, and that there is indeed notable levels of unrest in the area. See, for eg: [6]. But that alone doesn't justify keeping the whole article. And it should probably be renamed, or perhaps merged to Ahwaz. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ben, please note that we already have an article on the city, Ahvaz, located in the province of Khūzestān. This is the city named in the article you cited and this is also the city which comes up in searches for the name "Ahwaz" and "Ahvaz". This article, however, is about a different place. This is claiming there is a territory by the name "Ahwaz" that covers three provinces in Iran and enjoys "full autonomy and independence". There are no independent reliable sources that support the existence of such a territory and the article would appear to be a hoax or propaganda (propaganda may be more likely given the websites posted to the article belong to militant and revolutionary groups). Sarah 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see these maps from the University of Texas: [7] [8] [9]. This territory does not exist, although the city does. There is already an article for the city.--Strothra 14:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete, then redirect to Politics of Khūzestān Province - Ahvaz is the capital of the Iranian province of Khūzestān, not the territory claimed in the Ahwaz territory article. I found no references containing the term "Ahwaz territory". In addition, for such a long existing territory, you would think Google scholar and/or Google books would return something to prove its existence. The Ahwaz territory article states "Ahwaz was conquered by General Reza Khan". There are no references that contain both "Khan" and "Ahwaz". The Ahwaz territory article states "The last ruler of Ahwaz was Sheikh Khazal." There are no references that contain both "Khazal" and "Ahwaz". The article does not meet WP:V and the closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly by concluding otherwise. -- Jreferee t/c 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC) The first Google book hit indicates that the Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz originated the term "Ahwaz territory." Politics of Khūzestān Province is the main Wikipedia mention of Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz, so it seem like a good place to redirect the article until more reilable source material can be found to present a WP:V article on the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Ben Aveling 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closer - Since this topic seem to need input from those who actually may be familiar with the geographic region, I posted notes about this DRV on the talk page of editors who have contributed significantly to the Ahwaz article, WikiProject Iran‎, and other matters related to Iran. Some of those posting below this message may have come to this DRV at my request. This post is typical of my talk page posts. -- Jreferee t/c 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Problematic I have been in retirement from WP for months, due to my disgust with nationalistic squabbles like this one. The "Ahwaz territory" article is inaccurate and propagandistic; however, it exists due to Arab Khuzestani dissatisfaction with the existing articles on Khuzestan and Ahwaz, which are policed by Iranian nationalists. Khuzestani/Ahwazi history is complex and can't be slotted neatly into "always Iranian" or "always Arab". Yes, Reza Shah invaded Khuzestan/Ahwaz; yes, Sheikh Khazal ruled an area in which the Iranian central government had little say; no, Elamite is not a Semitic language, nor is it an Indo-European language. Best guess these days is that it's related to Brahui and Dravidian. WP could avoid the whole "projecting current national boundaries and squabbles back into history" mess by putting all the history of the area into an article on the history of the Karun basin (the Karun being the river that drains most of the area). Elam, various Persian dynasties, Abbasid caliphate would also be relevant. Zora 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Zora! I remember you, you are a good editor and should stay. Yes, the ethnic divide is problematic. However, I think that the Iranian Arabs article deals adequately with Arabs in Iran without the need for an article on the "Ahwaz territory" which is simply propaganda. Rather, the history belongs to several actual regions of Iran which is why the Iranian Arabs article is far better suited to handle the subject matter, and does so. That is why I think this should be overturned and redirected to Iranian Arabs. --Strothra 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The "Ahwaz territories" are no more real than the "Arabian Gulf" is. It is a fabrication of Arab nationalists, who wish to carry out the wish of Saddam Hussein, who invaded Iran in 1980 to annex Khuzestan to Iraq. However, Iranian Arabs do exist, without question. But there are already articles on English Wikipedia that deal with just that topic. Besides, the maps on the article are even fabricated, and are drawn along non-ethnic and purely modern provincial lines. (Northern Khuzestan e.g. is majority non-Arab, as are many parts of Bushehr province). If such purely OR articles are allowed to exist, please be consistent and allow articles for Vermont Territories, Hawaiian independence, and dozens of other similar political platform articles, not to mention the superminority of Persians that were expelled by force from Iraq in the mid twentieth centuries.--Zereshk 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - the decision of no consensus, given the strong presence of SPAs on the keep side, was not the only conclusion that could have been reached and core WP policy is pretty clear about verifiable entities with no original research. Orderinchaos 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete, and redirect referenced info in it (if any) to Politics of Khūzestān Province - The closure of deletation discussion was very abrupt. The article is unverifiable and hoax. However if there are referenced material in it, I think we should keep them as a part of Politics of Khūzestān Province. Farmanesh 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - the article is almost entirely composed of factually incorrect original research. --Dfitzgerald 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The term "Ahwaz" as applied to the region in question is used by certain Iranian separatist groups. The area in question and other related aspects are discussed in the relevant articles. Furthermore, the term itself is not affixed by "territory" in popular use. Kaveh 02:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete. Where to start? Elamites being Semitic! How about the two fake and OR non-academic maps? False etymology on Khuzestan. Funny that in its history section it skips Parthian and Achaemenid era! How about the fake population statistics. Also we have an article Iranian Arabs and one on Khuzestan and one on Ahvaz which is a city and not a province or double provinces! --alidoostzadeh 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete
  A-Lack of "Neutral point of view":as the article is a political statement by a certain political separatist group(Ahwazi Liberation Organization) which has particular idea's about history and politics that is strictly against established historical views.
  B-Severe problems in "Verifiability" ( such as calling Elam, Semitic and/or in such sentences :"Ahwaz was enjoyed full autonomy and independence at various times in its history of 6,000 years" and etc.
  C-"original research" in article's name, history section, "Politics" and cites...--Alborz Fallah 09:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Whatever I saw in the the initial AfD, the important thing is to get it right eventually and the consensus here is more than clear (leaving apart the formal distinction between deletion discussion and review). So I would suggest to close this review accordingly. --Tikiwont 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep real places and claimed places are kept, it is apparently a term well-known among both sides to the conflict, like Kurdistan and Greater Israel. Whether the better article would be to make it a claims/counterclaims version, there is little question that this meets the sourcing and notability requirements. If it's written from a POV, fix it don't delete it. Carlossuarez46 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan has, at least, partial autonomy, a system of governance, and international recognition. Greater Israel was an actual kingdom and exists today as a concept that drives part of Israeli foreign policy. Ahwaz is an abstract concept developed by a militant separatist group for political gain. --Strothra 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Arabs in other provinces are largely distinct from those in the Ahwaz/Khuzestan region, apart from those forcibly relocated to other parts of Iran. There is no territory in history that is contiguous with the map in this article, some of the facts are wrong and unverifiable and the author of the article appears to be unaware of Wikipedia editorial rules. Nevertheless, I believe this article has been created because the Arabs of Khuzestan article, which covered the issue of Ahwazi Arabs, was deleted and transformed from an ethnological article on this ethnic group to being lumped in with Iranian Arabs, as if there is no distinction between the histories of various Arab groups. I suggest resurrecting the Arabs of Khuzestan article, so that the issues can be addressed in an NPOV way.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think there is consensus that most of the article is not worth keeping, and that there is a view that some of it might be worth keeping, or at least that there is a decent topic for an article here. Might userfication be a solution? Ben Aveling 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Grooveshark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now noteworthy

The article about Grooveshark was deleted citing CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material, which was originally deleted because of Criteria for Speedy Deletion, A7.

However, I believe that A7 does not apply to Grooveshark any longer:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Out_Loud
• http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-healey15oct15,0,1679894.story?coll=la-opinion-center
• http://netscape.com.com/8301-2007_4-9778969-12.html
• http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/09/26/making-p2p-pay-grooveshark-review/
• http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/new-drm-free-p2.html
• http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/all-25-million-.html
• http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/10/p2p-music-sharing-service-grooveshark-ups-compensation/
• http://crunchgear.com/2007/09/16/screencast-early-look-at-grooveshark-music-service/

As you can see by following some of those links there is some controversy surrounding Grooveshark's approach to music sales (especially their EULA) and a Wikipedia entry would seem like a good place to go for information, however at this time the article is locked to prevent people from re-creating it. Can you please review your decision to lock this article? I don't know what the original article said so maybe it shouldn't be re-created, but I believe it should be at least unlocked. The administrator who did the deleting is currently on vacation. Thanks.

70.171.53.143 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grooveshark, and the fact that the recreation was completely unsourced and did not assert notability. All the sources provided here are blogs or opinion columns, which are not reliable sources. --Coredesat 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion until you can provide verifiable secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Smashville 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The recreated article did not overcome the reasons for deletion at AfD nor could it, thus CSD A4 fine for speedy deletion. There is lots of press release information going back to November 2006. However, I did find Miami Herald September 18, 2007 (the link blog reprints the Miami Herald news article and it is the Miami Herald news article that is a reliable source). Also, Chicago Reader did write "Or maybe you'd pielera monetized peer-to-peer network like Grooveshark." (see September 21, 2007 Chicago Reader. Not a whole lot to hang your hat on, but perhaps in a year or two Grooveshark will have been covered enough by reliable sources to create a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Well, endorse deletion, for a start - the recreation of the article actually contains even less assertion of notability than the January 2007 version which was deleted per AfD discussion, and absolutely no sources cited, reliable or not, other than the website itself. As for the issue of unprotecting to allow recreation - if the site is notable now (which seems unlikely since it is in "closed beta" still, according to the article), I recommend working up an article in user space which cites reliable sources for this notability, and then bringing it to Deletion Review. --Stormie 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation of a sourced article in userspace. As suggested by Stormie, this would allow us to judge an article at its best instead of the possibilities for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse nothing prevents you from trying again per Dhartung, but without reliable sources, it'll keep getting deleted (properly). Carlossuarez46 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Caelestia.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted as a 'Proposed Deletion' despite previously not being deleted in an AfD. Administrator in question has marked their homepage with a message stating that they are no longer active. Namegduf Live 04:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|AFD3|AFD4)

An article was recently deleted, containing material which was brought up on an AN/I incident. This article is Archimedes Plutonium. While the article was in AfD (the vote was keep last I checked, and the user who brought up the AfD changed his mind and also voted keep), this is not about the article itself. The article's edit history contained what were, in my opinion, incriminating evidence of bad-faith edits by two users. It is essential that other administrators be able to review the edit logs. I do not care if the article is restored at this time, but certain assertions in the AN/I about the bad-faith editing can best be supported by references to the edit logs, and they are no longer extant. I hope the edit logs can be retrieved for review.Likebox 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Malformed and misplaced nomination relisted with proper headers. ~ trialsanderrors 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse due to lack of reason for undeletion; administrators can see the deleted edits, now including diffs. GRBerry 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Admins are able to review deleted revisions. If you truly have worries over bad-faith edits, you may contact me with details at my talk or by email, and I'll investigate. I have no prior involvement with this article, and I do find the AfD conclusion (on both BLP and WP:N grounds) appropriate. Xoloz 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close This DRV request that others review the edit logs. DRV is not the place to grant such a request. Comment In 2002, a former Dartmouth university employee who went under the pseudonym Archimedes Plutonium was falsely accused of killing two New Hampshire professors. See Providence Journal Bulletin. (June 30, 2002) False leads on the trail of professors' killers. Initial suspects included a geology professor living in Arizona and a former university employee who went under the pseudonym Archimedes Plutonium. Page 10. -- Jreferee t/c 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)