Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure

Add links
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 merge to either Amazon.com#Controversies (an article sub-section) or Amazon.com controversies (a standalone article).

In spite of the obviously controversial, to put it mildly, nature of the topic and the lengthy discussion, I think consensus here is pretty clear cut. AfDs are not, of course, votes, but considering the numbers is particularly useful for this AfD. I broke down all of the comments below into the following categories, with totals to follow.

  • Delete: 6
  • Delete or Merge: 12
  • Merge: 8
  • Merge or Keep: 1
  • Keep (including "keep and rename"): 8
  • Discounted !Votes: (10 total, 8 keeps/don't deletes by IPs or new accounts who did not articulate valid arguments, 1 "keep somewhere" with no explanation, 1 delete with no rationale)

So in total I find there to be 35 valid !votes/comments in this AfD (note: even were I to count a few more of the random IP votes, which I don't think is warranted, this would not change my reading of the outcome). Out of those 35, only a small minority were in favor of keeping or deleting outright. Over half of the 35 supported deletion, but two-thirds of those found merging acceptable. Even of the 14 outright keep/delete !votes, several seemed to intimate that a merge would be acceptable.

Looking to the specific arguments rather than the !votes we find a similar story. Almost no one is suggesting that the controversy surrounding the book lacks any notability—i.e. we should probably talk about it somewhere. On the other end, few of the outright !keep voters (JoshuaZ is one exception) are articulating an argument against a merge. The argument that the notability of the book comes primarily or exclusively in the context of Amazon.com's retail choices (and not for the book itself per say) is more convincing and supported by a supermajority, i.e. most or all of those arguing for merge and/or for deletion.

As such a merge seems to be where consensus lies, and we even almost have agreement as to the target. If the newly created Amazon.com controversies remains an article it belongs there, otherwise Amazon.com#Controversies would be the target. Editors should carry out a merge to one of those as soon as possible, and folks can haggle about where the Amazon "controversies" belong later. Please note that Phillip R. Greaves also currently exists as a redirect to this article and will need to be directed to the eventual merge target for The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure.

One final note: merging obviously does not preclude later expansion of the material into a standalone article should additional coverage (and changed consensus) suggest that that's the best course. For now though the consensus to merge and redirect this article is quite clear in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure

[edit]
The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable book which has only come to be discussed because of its subject matter (paedophilia) and sale on Amazon.com. It is not in itself a notable book and fails WP:GNG. No objection to a merge to Amazon.com Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge into Amazon.com Drat! Beat me to it. I was going to nominate this for deletion when Delicious carbuncle got in ahead of me by literally seconds. Totally obscure smut manual of no inherent notability whatsoever, known only because of Amazon controversy that will be forgotten in a few weeks. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with deletion as deleting the mere mention or review of a book is just as bad or worse as banning or censoring the book itself. What are we afraid of? The information? The mere fact someone has written about a Taboo subject does not qualify any review or book to be banned regardless of content. If we head down the censorship road where does it stop? The Nazis tried that and it failed to work for them too. An open society by it's very freedom of being open for publishing thoughts and discussions on any subject is the very basis for all our hard won constitutional freedoms. If you don't wish to read about a subject, then don't. But don't impose your value system or beliefs on others. Freedom of the press is sacrosanct. Demosthanes2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demosthanes2 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Demosthanes2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - mention Nazis and you've already lost the debate - Alison ❤ 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another lol Seconding that motion, Sadads (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I commented on his talk page pointing out Godwin's law, Sadads (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, alternatively, merge to Amazon.com#Controversies. Has received a great deal of coverage already (all of it negative for Amazon) from many mainstream sources. Another possible solution would be to expand it to include the other "controversial" (obscene, racist, illegal) books that Amazon has chosen to sell or not sell in the past, and the controversies surrounding them; then, possibly rename it Amazon.com controversies or Controversies surrounding Amazon.com's sales policies. There have been enough such controversies by now, and they have received enough attention, that they definitely do deserve their own article, even if only as a group rather than a separate article for each controversy. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: Just because this book is controversial it should not be deleted. It can be a very good educational resource for therapists and counselors. I work with SAY (sexually agressive youth) and it's literature like this book that helps us teach our children to avoid situations that lead to pedophiles molesting and raping children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.162.46 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 108.17.162.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete: This is now text book material for preventing and spotting signs of possible child / adult relations. This can lay ground work of very useful future preventions. Especially for those accused falsely by estranged spouses / family. Child Protective Services can actually have something in their arsenal other than pure speculation to remove a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.227.147 (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 174.55.227.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


WHY DELETE IT IF THE BOOK ISN'T BEING BANNED. IT'S SILLY AND A WASTE OF TIME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.126.19 (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 110.159.126.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 110.168.143.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:AGF, please. Strange as the notion of handling issues in a logical, dispassionate manner seems to be to many people, there are numerous editors on Wikipedia who seek to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in a fair and balanced manner. For myself, since I am not a mindreader, I presume that people usually fall into that category rather than assume that those voting in a way I don't like are "just using their emotions and personal opinions."  Ravenswing  03:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't run across Basketball-Pedophilia analogies every day.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't nominate this for rescue. It has tons of eyes on it already, its not like help is needed to find sourcing.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nominated for rescue, it's nominated so the ARSe squad can pile on the 'keep' votes. Pardon my ABF but I've seen it happen enough times already <_< - Alison ❤ 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 19:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I originally closed this as a delete, but there's no harm in more discussion here, as the difference between a merge and a delete here is particularly thin. Courcelles 19:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep because people just want to delete it because of the controversy. This is a useful guidebook for pedophiles and needs to be maintained. Woobarcat (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)— Woobarcat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dude's indef'd, too. Jack ;)[reply]

P.S. The last thing we need is to give another excuse for an idiot to sue us. 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
There's no way that guy's lawsuit is going to get any traction. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading tip. Wikipedia has a policy page called Wikipedia:Child protection. On its talk page there are some interesting discussions, some if which clearly would add useful perspectives to many of the comments and opinions presented in the current discussion. See for instance Wikipedia talk:Child protection#CNN goes on the warpath against Amazon.com. __meco (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete Passing news story per WP:NOTNEWS, not a notable book in its own right.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book was well-publicized in many media reports, which were not general reports about Amazon but just that and a few other books. We might consider a merge with the other books banned by Amazon in response to the media push, but I think this would also be counterproductive, because the resulting article would tend to become open-ended. We should not create a "controversies about Amazon" POV fork, nor should we try to cover all the twists and turns in evaluation of individual books in the main Amazon article. I'll add that however short it is, I found this article quite useful because it cited a reference showing that PETA was using the banning of this book to push for banning of books about dog-fighting, a good empirical example of the "slippery slope" in action.[3] I should emphasize that, as I've said before, WP:NOTNEWS does not call for deletion of the subjects of widespread news coverage. Wnt (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOTNEWS exists because people often dash off to their computers to create articles in response to stories in the news without considering the overall notability. This appears to be an example of the phenomenon. I would be quite happy to see this information merged into Amazon.com or another article, but it fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is it about that guideline, that everyone who cites it always ignores what it says? "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". And the WP:GNG still says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is very clearly true. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, look at the guideline! "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." That says the exact opposite of what you imply! Wnt (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again again, look at the guideline! "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
Now it's clear that the very first criterion for the books notability policy, same as the GNG, is met here. Many news articles talked about this book, and they did not simply regurgitate a plot (and weren't just press releases); they discussed what it said.
I should add that while it is not necessary to retain the article, there is much historical significance to this. The book was used in a general crusade against well-known companies selling user-generated books without having a publisher going over and deciding whether it is morally acceptable to publish it or not. It clarifies, as never before, the private publisher's primary role as a censor rather than a mere typesetter and book-binder. Wnt (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are making an argument for why an article on the incident should exist. The book notability guideline does not cover the case where a storm erupts over a company selling a particular book. Such a storm does not make the book notable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between a "storm" and a "review"? Reviews make a book notable according to WP:Notability (books). We could have an article Amazon.com banning of The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure, but that would be stupid, no? Wnt (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Pedophile’s_Guide_to_Love_and_Pleasure&oldid=1166301354"