Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toddlercon (2nd nomination)

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 delete. The article's subject is found to be a neologism and to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toddlercon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd previously closed this back in 2014 as a hoax, with an additional rationale that at best this seemed like a WP:NEOLOGISM. I was asked to restore this on my talk page by Alsee with the rationale that this wasn't a hoax and since that was the main reason it was deleted, I figured that it would be reasonable to open this back up for a second AfD. His other rationale was "Google Scholar turns up a (very small) number of viable sources, Bing reports four hundred million results. The Scholar hits are very thin, and trying to find RS in the general hits would be a long ugly slog through mud, but with hundreds of millions of general hits it's implausible that there aren't more RS in there." I don't remember seeing the academic sources when I initially looked, so it's possible that these were uploaded at some point after the close, which is possible given that academia (especially foreign language sources) isn't exactly the greatest at uploading their stuff.

My concern here is that while there are a few hits in Google Scholar, the term doesn't appear to be in frequent use and it seems to refer to lolicon. I think that at best, this could be merged into another article, either for lolicon or Glossary of anime and manga. However the question here is if this term is used enough to warrant even that. There are some hits on Google, but almost solely junk hits or places that wouldn't be considered reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can provide enough sourcing to show that this would merit its own article rather than it being deleted as a neologism or merged into another article, I'm open to withdrawing this. I just don't think that this is a really commonly used term or one that's actually been discussed as really separate from lolicon or shoutacon. Plus the article has some issues with original research, but that can be fixed if there are reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG since there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Added to this the exsamples given are all red links. For the article to merit a merge I would want to see some sourcing. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I defend controversial stuff on principle, I couldn't see what the deleted article looked like, and the "hoax" close after two and a half hours seemed like a kneejerk response to the topic. Now that I see what's there, that's pretty dismal. Google Scholar gave European Scientific Journal[1], VII CONGRESS OF PORTUGUESE Sociology[2], a paper from a Mexican university[3], and possibly others, but they don't give much more than a dictionary definition. There have to be sources in the 400 million Bing hits, but I haven't really tried digging through it yet. In theory there's a topic here. I don't know that anything in the current article is really salvageable, but without an existing base article it will be hard to find anyone who dares create it from scratch. I dunno, I'll try to comment again in a day or two. Alsee (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If more usable sources don't turn up, ~~it should clearly redirect to Lolicon.~~ Alsee (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) (revised below) Alsee (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The European Journal gives a half-line comment about it existing in the middle of a much broader article. It could be useful as a source on Lolicon or perhaps another article but using it as an notability example would be rather difficult.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without a redirect). Google shows even less hits than Bing: just 75 (if you exclude duplicate results). This is far from a term which is in common use, and while at least two papers have used the term, it's so obscure and so infrequently used (I've personally never used the term nor seen it used in anime websites, and I tend to visit a lot of them) that I doubt that it's even a plausible search term except for the very few. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without a redirect) Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and the term is nothing more than a WP:NEOLOGISM. Given the hits on google this isn't likely to be a search term either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention of this in AnimsCons.com. [4] If it's a neologism like all those variants of -dere, is there a notabie article on JA Wikipedia? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, there's a misunderstanding here. No one is claiming there is an Anime Con. The topic is an existing subset of Manga, like our articles on Lolicon and Shotacon. "Con" in this case originates from the word "Complex", not "Convention". Alsee (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for とっぇこん on JA Wikipedia. It is not listed among anime and manga glossaries such as Jason Thompson's one in Manga The Complete Guide. If someone's looking for such information they would just look under Pedophilia and be done with it. Read the definitions listed in the first paragraph, and you'll see terms "Nepiophilia" and "infantophilia" that are more specific and those don't even have separate articles. You're taking one of those terms, translating it into Japanese and giving it a newer slang. That doesn't make it any more notable than the existing psychological terms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "-con" suffix can be put in the glossary for both those two definitions you mentioned, but this specific example would not be needed at all in favor of far more prominent terms such as brocon or siscon used in anime shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, the Scholarly RS definition, and the common English meaning at non-RS search results, is a genre of artwork. It is primarily Noted in those reliable sources in reference to the legislative dispute of whether fictional images can or should be made illegal. About half of the Lolicon article is devoted to the legislative controversy, I expect the percentage would be higher if this were ever an article rather than a redirect. The term is directly derived from Lolicon, and if this were theoretically developed into an article it should closely mirror that article. That is almost certainly what someone is looking for if they are searching for the term. Pedophilia/Nepiophilia/infantophilia would be an extremely poor redirect target. Someone searching for the term is almost certainly looking for Lolicon, a mirror image of that article, or a glossary entry linking to Manga&Lolicon&Shotacon with a sentence or two explaining the distinctions. Alsee (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that "とっぇこん" is what happens when someone tries to type "toddlercon" in a Japanese IME], ie. "とっぇこん" does not exist natively in Japanese. The closest Japanese equivalent is べビコン, bebicon, short for "baby complex", but even that is not common. _dk (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of anime and manga, since "toddlercon" is not gender-specific unlike lolicon. Google turns up 77,000 hits for me (don't know how just 75 hits turned up above), but I suspect this number is too low due to the topic's controversial nature and Google's practice of hiding porn results. At least two papers have used the term, which makes the term notable enough for a redirect, discounting personal anecdotes of whether the term is common or not. _dk (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of anime and manga. I commented above, but I'm listing my !vote here. The Google Scholar Reliable Sources clearly support adding a listing there.

The no-redirect !Votes saying it's not a plausible search term are clearly mistaken. We have several Google Scholar hits, 74k Google hits, almost a half Billion Bing hits (that's Billion with a B). Page-view stats shows 2585 page views over the last three years, and a constant log of views back to the earliest available data in 2007. Obviously there are many people typing in the title to directly load the page, or are entering it as a search term and still clicking the redlink. Is there any valid basis for the No-Redirect, other than the radioactive topic?

Note the over a 5000-to-1 disparity in Bing and Google stats here. According to a large number of Reliable Sources, Google is an utterly unreliable source for porn-related results.[5] A few years ago Google started aggressively de-ranking and massively excluding porn related hits. There is a popular meme that Bing is the best site for porn-related results because people only use it to search for porn.[6] Never never never use Google to evaluate porn-related stats. Alsee (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basing arguments around the number of search results has always been a misguided way of determining notability and other inclusion reasoning because it's just so unreliable. The fact that a word with a stem that is so extremely common in day to day life generates so many hits neither surprises me nor impacts my opinion here. Also pointing out that search results are manipulated is a really good way of debunking your argument by yourself. If it is so easy for search engines to manipulate their results (which they do constantly just as a matter of process when they remove and sort them before displaying) to hide articles, it can work in both directions and inflate them as well. You've found some search results, but are any of them demonstrating either notability or the likelihood of notability in the immediate future? We aren't Urban dictionary, it's not necessarily for us to list every related term - and that includes the possibility of removing other terms that are currently being used (which is subject to a fresh debate). Also, please don't keep suggesting that the response is due to it's "social problems" as a topic, if a neutral and objective article can be created and meet notability, then we are quite capable of accepting it just like we have an article on Lolicon. The responses have all been along those lines. Being a questionable subject matter in itself would justify it's inclusion BUT it still has to meet the same criteria as everything else. While you can "defend controversial material" as much as you want and are entitled to, please don't assume everyone is trying to delete it just because it's controversial. You won't do yourself any favours. SephyTheThird (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SephyTheThird you seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying. I didn't vote keep, and I didn't argue Notablility-for-keep. The current article is crap. We have Scholar reliable sources, but they are inadequate to support an article. Given almost a half billion search hits I think it's implausible that there are zero reliable sources in there, but we can't support an article unless someone actually locates some. My !vote was redirect. The Scholar sources clearly support an entry in Glossary of anime and manga. Your !vote is against a redirect on the basis that you don't think it is a likely search term - but even as a redlink this article-page has been getting thousands of page views. Your thought about likelyhood as a search term was mistaken. We know for a fact that thousands of people are searching for it on Wikipedia. Do you think it would be appropriate to revise your !vote to redirect on that basis?

Regarding "people voting delete because it's controversial", please take look at Satellizer !vote below where they makes the false claim that there are no sources at all, and then look at their edit summary where they state the actual basis for their position: "wikipedia is no place for this twisted stuff". We will not remove Images of Muhammad. We will not remove Nazi Flags. We will not remove relevant explicit images from anatomical and sexual articles. WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. WP:CLOSE policy says that !votes cast in flat contradiction to policy should be completely discounted. I hope the closer throws that one out the window. Alsee (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEOLOGISM. Glossary of anime and manga already has enough problems with terms that aren't associated with anime and manga on the list and there is no references that this term, if the definition can be sourced, is associated with anime or manga as well. The PDFs that Alsee linked to earlier all come up as blank pages and Google search in the scholar, news, and book sections don't come up with anything relevant. —Farix (t | c) 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PDFs are not blank. The first one is in English, and gives a short definition, surely enough, but I can't speak for the quality and relevance for the other two since they are in Spanish or Portuguese and I can't read either. Even if the PDFs are blank, a bare offline citation is enough to establish notability for inclusion. _dk (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary definition (or set) isn't enough to make a subject notable. That would seem to fail WP:Notdic. Actually, it explicity tells us that "While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability". Now, that doesn't eliminate a journal article as that isn't a dictionary, but it seems reasonable that this would extend to other pure definitions. 02:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)SephyTheThird (talk)

I'm not arguing for toddlercon being its own article, it undoubtedly fails WP:N as a standalone article. But the mere fact that the term is defined in three scholarly articles may warrant an entry on the glossary. _dk (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Nepiophilia then. Same term in English just with a nickname. Even more prominently used terms such as sister complex or brother complex would redirect to either Incest or Complex (psychology). This would be also like yamato nadeshiko, or NEET in that they are general Japanese terms, not specific to manga or anime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above. Suggested redirect is very unlikely to be the desired result for someone searching for this term. Alsee (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farix, I double checked the links, they all work. Your browser is probably choking on PDFs for some reason. They are all scholarly sources. Alsee (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We are not a dictionary. Furthermore, web search results, be they Google or not, are not a reliable indicator of anything and never will be. There is no context to them, impossible to check a substantial percentage of them and with such a common stem word will always include false results. I don't see any reason to have a redirect because I don't think it is a likely search term, and that justifying it based on google hits is flawed as above. The page should be based on the same merits we base other articles and deletion discussions around - do we have appropriate sources to merit the topic and show its actual notability. No, we don't. Lolicon however is well documented.SephyTheThird (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No redirect, as there are absolutely no results from reliable sources so it doesn't even warrant a mention in Glossary of anime and manga. A neologism at its finest. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with assessment that no reliable sources exist. The three academic papers cited do not offer pursuable sources in Japan, and the term is gibberish. Jun Kayama 02:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing some comments saying "I don't think it is a likely search term", "I've personally never used the term nor seen it used in anime websites, and I tend to visit a lot of them", and even "Wikipedia is no place for this twisted stuff". These are all based on subjective opinion based on personal anecdotes. Unfortunately, extreme sexual deviancy is a part of this world, and Wikipedia has no moral responsibility to keep this stuff off the site (WP:NOTCENSORED). Alsee has provided at least three sources that shows the existence of the term and phenomenon, and I have seen no counterargument to discount them yet (except an erroneous claim that the PDFs are blank). _dk (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My "twisted stuff" edit summary was little more than light-hearted personal opinion and is not meant to be taken seriously. It's also not a part of my argument. Instead, the problem here is that Alsee's "sources" are little more than one-line dictionary definitions, and despite proving that the term WP:EXISTS they are nowhere in-depth enough to establish WP:SIGCOV. Thus, the article is a neologism. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV and various essays based on WP:N only determine if a topic should have its own article, not whether an article should mention something or not. ("The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.") So far nobody thinks toddlercon should have its own article, so those essays you linked don't really add to the debate. The point of contention so far is whether it should be redirected to the glossary where a brief blurb would be inserted. _dk (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in the glossary would still depend on whether or not the term is widely used enough. While Bing does show significantly more hits than Google, almost none of them are reliable coverage about the term. In fact, from what I've seen, the few "serious" uses of the term suggest it's actually a synonym for shotacon, which is a term which is more widely used. It's not really about search hits, but more if the term is in use enough to even warrant a redirect (as a separate article is already out of the picture due to lacking significant coverage), and right now it seems that the term is either too new or too obscure to warrant a redirect. A mention in Lolicon is possible, but again, only if the term is widely used (right now, I couldn't even find a reliable source which states that it's a synonym for lolicon, so if a mention is added to the article, that could be considered original research). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or..... you could try checking the Reliable Sources that were posted to this page. Alsee (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't really add to the debate"... I wasn't trying to start a debate, instead explaining why toddlercon shouldn't have a standalone article, since it currently does have one and the standard AfD positions are keep or delete. A redirect here wouldn't be necessary either, since listicles are free to impose their own notability requirements (for example, List of Marvel Comics characters doesn't list every single named character that's ever appeared) and in an article with such a broad scope like Glossary of anime and manga, each and every entry must demonstrate at least a minimum level of significance in the anime/manga community to warrant inclusion. I wouldn't say toddlercon, with it's three minor passing mentions in obscure university papers, is exactly significant. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Were it トドラコン and thus literally a fetish on sea lions I would vote Keep for this immediately. However such is not the case and after a few hours of thorough searching I can locate nothing in Japanese media on explicitly this term, in either the gibberish とっぇこん or anything distinct from ショタ・ロリ proper. I have no opinions from a moral perspective on the subject matter, but there is no WP:RS on the Japanese side to speak of and until academic papers originating in Japan (or even a Spa! article [7]) the academic papers presented to date from overseas are suspect. Jun Kayama 00:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet any material for a better article, nothing was convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 4 February 2016 (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.