Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:52, 18 January 2008

Adult-child sex

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

• Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex
• Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

POV fork created by a pro-pedophile advocate in the middle of a redirect deletion discussion which was in favour of deletion. I don't care if the page is deleted or redirected to child sexual abuse but this POV fork has created nothing but controversy from day 1. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- When it was created (about 4-5 months ago), it was a POV article. The content has been markedly improved since then. We can't decide to delete the current article because it was created by the wrong editor with bad content. The original creator is banned; The content has been reworked extensively. Compare the first version of this article to the current one and see. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

*Redirect to Pedophilia - covers the same topic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Except that it doesn't cover the same topic. Adult-child sex is a broader topic than pedophilia, encompassing both pedophile and non-pedophile instances, including cultures and times where there was no conception of pedophilia. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There have been 15 to 20 proposals for delete/merge/redirect before, none of them successfully reaching a consensus. To echo SSB, "Involved Wikipedians and impartial admins have seen no consensus for such a redirection." --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's not play "nominate until the consensus goes my way" per WP:POINT - the last nom was only 3 months ago and the reasoning is the same as before. Cited and notable topic different from pedophilia and too large to be merged into that article anyway. --Strothra (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nothing of the sort going on here. The first afd did not vote overwhelmingly for keep, indeed the redirects and deletes between them were much larger. Since thenm the article has poroduced nothing but controversy with a small group resisting any change hook anbd dagger. its standard practice to nominate controversial articles more than once, Daniel Brandt was nominated 14 times before deletion and that isnt a record. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Does that mean that you intend to nominate the article until it is deleted? --Strothra (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I hope it will be deleted this time. If it isnt my long term strategy would not involve multiple afds, from my current perspective. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment I hate to butt in, but by saying you have a strategy, aren't you indicating your goal is to get the article deleted one way or another, regardless of concensus? Pharmboy (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment...And even if it didn't, that response is still indicative of an intent to disrupt constructive editing of an article. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not deconstructing one. See, WP:POINT and WP:GAME. --Strothra (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Comment It treats Misplaced Pages like a magic eight ball; Simply shake it enough times and it will eventually produce the answer you want. --SSBohio 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete oir redirect as suggested by the nominator. It could be redirected to either child sexual abuse or pedophilia. Pol64 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sourcing my above statement on prior requests for delete/merge/redirect (in addition to those RfD two links in that box above), see here, here, here, and here. Both the nominator and Pol64 have just today been warned by several admins of likely getting blocked for another attempt to unilterally re-direct as they have tried numerous times even way beyond the many official requests I have just linked. --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is utterly crazy. About 85% of this article's lifespan has been taken up by some attempt to nonconsensually purge, merge or delete, in which SqueakBox has been instrumental. digitalemotion 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That is clearly not true. There were 4 independent attempts by 4 separate editors to resolve this issue and I was only involved int he first of those 4. The reason we need another afd is because so many editors oppose this article's existence. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. SqueakBox, you have been ever present in the attempt to undermine sourced material in this article. I am not aware of what you refer to when you mention four independent attempts to resolve some issue, but even if this is true, it would certainly undermine the sheer ferocity with which you have attempted to destroy this article. This has at times reached the level of claiming that opposing editors must either be sockpuppets or pedophile activists, thus elevating your opinion above theirs.
    • May I also add that the current article is nothing like it was a while ago, and nothing like the draft proposed by TlatoSMD. SqueakBox's constant, unjustified blanking of sourced material actually betters his case for deletion. digitalemotion 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep You don't have to like something to understand it is notable, real, and reasonable to have an article on it. Pharmboy (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced, and surprisingly written from a NPOV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as to how the "almost universally accepted view" part of the child sexual abuse section being approximately 1/3 the size of the other view conforms to WP:NPOV. - Revolving Bugbear 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article remains NPOV. In fact, there is even greater reason for keeping, as this article does not include historical and cross-cultural perspectives - for which there is a wealth of information that has already been copied to previous versions of this very article. The nominator's motivations anger me greatly. I have lost count of how many times he has acted rudely on talk pages, lost arguments, lost consensus and gone ahead with his Orwelian plans regardless. There is also something else that I think he has done right here which angers me even more, but this I shall not disclose this due to a lack of (absolute) certainty. GrooV (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete or make a redirect. Only paedos call it this. Wiki is accused of backing paedos and giving them a platform enough without this being here. We must guard what's left of our reputation over these issues. Also, obvious POV fork. Merkinsmum 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The redirect could not be to CSA, but to pedophilia. Merkinsmum 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful there, you do realize you called everyone who has said to keep this article a pedophile? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that comment could have consisted of more tact. --Strothra (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is no defense of pedophilia. Read it for yourselves. Whenever I get involved in these things, I see the most vile innuendoes cast about. A little more civility would be nice. --SSBohio 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Misplaced Pages is not concerned with what "paedos" call something or not, but rather a neutral account of each and every prevalent subject, however controversial it is. This will include a full appreciation of the fact that sexual contact between adults and children has a history and cross-cultural spectrum of variation that spans wildly beyond the current medical conception of child sexual abuse, however valid that conception indeed is. GrooV (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Given a chance to actually have some meaningful editing, this could be a very decent article with lots of references to historical and scholarly works. There are at least two drafts in userspace attempting to do just that since the mainspace article is subject to POV revert wars. Appears to be a WP:POINT nomination after losing the latest round of "let's gut the article." Pairadox (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Make that 3 drafts. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Comment. Already in the short time this AfD has been open, there have been multiple personal attacks and showing of bad faith. This nomination is nothing even close to WP:POINT. This is not a campaign by one editor, as will be seen as additional comments are entered here over the next few days. This comment is not my !vote, I am writing this separately to note that it is wrong by policy and by spirit to attack someone for bringing up a question for community consideration. Please stop discussing editors and focus on the question of the AfD. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious content fork. Not a single section of the article stands on its own; all major sections point to a main article on the subject of that section elsewhere. The minimal amounts of extra content available in this article all belong elsewhere. Rray (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue of a purported "POV fork" has been addressed a number of times within the proposals I have linked, all ending with no consensus for delete/merge/redirect, and where even ten people or more said that the current article for Child Sexual Abuse is a "POV fork" as it should limit itself exclusively to legal aspects. The reason why the official article currently looks as poor as it does (especially in comparison to the existing drafts) is the same as why those people who keep removing copious, well-sourced material have been reprimanded today by admins. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment This is similar to a draft essay I am working on (and just used this example to add to) called Don't Bludgeon The Process. Pharmboy (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  I think the word you're looking for is "bludgeon", not "bludgen". Rray (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. Pharmboy (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • • Comment Just because an issue has been discussed before doesn't mean it's been solved. Just because no consensus was reached last time doesn't mean that a consensus can't be reached this time. I see no good reason to keep this article, as the material can and should be covered in other articles related to the subject. Rray (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment This might not be a record particularly on AfD, but it certainly is a good candidate for record on total propososals and polls to delete/merge/redirect, especially when viewed in comparison to this article's age. Do you really have to succeed the 14 AfD polls for Daniel Brandt with 15 to 20 proposals to remove the material one way or another in just a few weeks? Just how much bloody noses of defeat does it take to warrant referring to WP:POINT? Also Rray, I repeat that the current bad shape of the article is due to those editors that have been warned of getting blocked today. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment It seems as if this is the 2nd nomination for deletion, which doesn't seem excessive to me. Consensus can change over time, and three months seems to be a reasonable amount of time to wait to bring the matter up again. The editors being warned about being blocked seems irrelevant to me as to whether or not this article should be kept. The material in the article, and the material that could reasonably expect to be added to the article, can and should all be covered in the other articles on this subject. So the article has no reason to exist. Rray (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment As I said, this might only be the second AfD, but several dozen of people reached no consensus in 15 to 20 delete/merge/redirect proposal polls to favor any of those proposed options. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Its been nowhere near several dozen. Please stop propagating this falsehood unless you are willing to back it mup with diffs. When I last counted about a week ago there were 17 people involved (not including admins in their role as admins or blocked users), you'd need ato prove at least twice that number were involved or you are simply exagerrasting. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Well, not referring to the people only taking part here, I count in the proposal polls I linked to User:Chick_Bowen, User:SqueakBox, User:BlindEagle, User:CheNuevara, User:Ssbohio, User:Colonel_Warden, User:Jmh123, User:Speciate, User:A.Z., User:Grutness, User:VanTucky, User:Will_Beback, User:Jtrainor, User:Lara_bran, User:Chris_Buckey, User:Flyer22, User:Eleland, User:Roman_Czyborra, User:Serpent's_Choice, User:Rocket000, User:Rocksanddirt, User:Enrico_Dirac, User:TlatoSMD (see User_talk:TlatoSMD), User:WJBscribe, User:Ronnotel, User:Jeeny, User:Mr.Z-man, User:J_Milburn, User:After_Midnight, User:Melsaran, User:WikiLeon, User:Picaroon, User:Gracenotes, User:Mtmelendez, User:Pol64, User:Anchoress, User:The_Scarlet_Letter, User:Mangojuice, User:XDanielx, User:Thebainer, User:Wikidudeman, User:GroomingVictim, User:Strichmann, User:Penwhale, User:Homologeo, User:HolokittyNX, User:Digital_Emotion, User:Albert_Wincentz, User:Nihiltres, User:Photouploaded, User:Deus_Ex_Machina, User:VigilancePrime, User:Jack-A-Roe, User:Aditya_Kabir, User:Souljaman, User:Seicer, User:ThuranX, User:Nakon. That's 58 people, only tweo editors short of 5 dozen. --TlatoSMD (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
        • • • I read what you wrote previously, but that doesn't change the fact that there is support for deletion, and this is the appropriate venue at which to discuss deletion. Rray (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

• Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination (was Snowball Keep) -- Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush all over again. This was sent for deletion only in November. It was closed as a Keep. SqueakBox took the result to deletion review. The review endorsed the close as keep. Unable to succeed that way, those favoring deletion attempted to merge this article into another. They were so persistent against consesnsus that the article required admin intervention. Then, the article was moved to adult-older teen sex, again without consensus. Another admin moved it back, for which trouble he has been threatened (by the nom) with being taken to arbitration. I want to see a consensus solution here, but this sort of activity makes seeing such a solution very difficult. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) -- Updated my Keep !vote. Also, see this version for a better idea of what the article looked like before decimation. --SSBohio 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm adding the template at the top of this page. This is obviously a very controversial topic, and opinions will be very heated on both sides. Let's all remember be civil, and hopefully stay away from the personal attacks. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP:SNOWball happening here. This discussion needs to be fully aired out with plenty of community participation and that will take some time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a snowball keep in this instance would be inappropriate. Three months is an appropriate time to wait before renominating something for deletion, and there seems to be enough support for deletion to warrant a discussion. Rray (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not even vaguely snowball, that would be if nobody had agreed with deletion so far. Besides, an early keep would hardly resolve the issue while a snowball would imply there isn no issue except min the mind of the nominator and that simply isn't wahat is happening here. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also a nomination undertaken in questionable faith, but I had previously been giving the benefit of the doubt. There was already a discussion ongoing at the article's talk page, several attempts have been made to short-circuit it and impose one side's preferred outcome, with this being the latest. Only a short time ago, when the article had been moved to adult-older teen sex, you expressed no desire to delete it, Squeak. Now that the article title is back to what it was before, you jump out of the talk page discussion and come over to AfD (once more). Here, you cite a fictitious reason to delete the article; The current article wasn't written by a banned pro-pedophile advocate, only the original version from months ago was. It's hard to get more bad faith than to hang this nomination on a statement you know to be untrue. I've tried hard to assume good faith on your part, but edits like this, this, this, this, especially this, and this call that good faith into question. --SSBohio 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the reasons for a speedy keep apply here. You might try reviewing the legitimate reasoning for a speedy keep again. See Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep. There are only four listed, and not one of them applies to this AfD. Rray (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• comment a well-rounded discussion of these issues could take place in Pedophilia or age of consent rather than split it into two separate articles just so an extremely fringe, minority perspective can justify itself. Merkinsmum 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And no I'm noot calling everyone who gets a buzz from this article being here a paedo, I'm just saying as a rule, I doubt anyone calls it this except those who are activists for paedophilia. I used to have a friend who was a convicted paedo, so I can be sympathetic, but they don't need to be enabled, encouraged, or have their behaviour justified for them, but be encouraged to get treatment. Merkinsmum 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When I say 'used to have a friend' I don't mean he's an ex-friend, just that we've lost touch because where he is now, he's not allowed online.:) Merkinsmum 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Comment User:Strichmann and I alone coughed up roughly a hundred peer-reviewed scientific sources of what you call "fringe view", that were ready to be incorporated into the article, plus even more which were still under debate as to what particular point they had to be applied to or whether they might be better of as sourcing other articles, while the other side, apparently far from being erudite about the issues and the scientific literature in the least, just failed for months to back their own uneducated guesses up. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• What article are you reading? The one for nom seems to be from a NPOV, or I would have some objections to the content. I am as anti-pedo as they come, but I am not going to let my personal feelings get in the way of the facts: the topic is notable, the article is written in a NPOV (which could be fixed if it wasn't) and from someone who just walked into this conversation, it looks like a few people have been on a crusade to get it deleted. Pharmboy (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, yes but why is it divorced from the pedophilia or age of consent article's content? That is where the POV of it lies, in the POV fork-ism. Merkinsmum 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So the article is written with a NPOV, but you want to delete because it is a POV fork? I am happy to discuss any point in good faith, but you have to make a consistant argument. You make it very difficult to assume you are arguing in good faith and it seem easily appearant that you have no interest in a genuine discussion, and instead want to (yes) bludgeon the process with this nonsense "argument". No thanks. Pharmboy (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• there's also a reason from another perspective on the article- if the article has a lot of attempts to NPOV it towards the reality that this is a crime, then the article is extraneous and unnecessary anyway and should be merged into CSA, age of consent, or pedophilia. Merkinsmum 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nobody ever intended to deny that Western cultures have put forth legal bans against the behavior, however the focus of the article at hand was never supposed to be merely legal (which is probably what CSA ought to limit itself to), but rather a paramount anthropological, ethological, and biosocial account of facts and the scientific theories relating to them. If you have a problem with reporting on and relating to animals, go complain to sociobiologists such as Frans de Waal or Richard Dawkins. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, nowhere in the article does it do that, also I'm concerned not so much about this version which is a pale imitation of the CSA article at present, but I can imagine what more pro-adult-child sex versions in the past and no doubt in the future will be like. Thhe potential for abuse of the article is higher than in the CSA and paedophilia articles. What've I said about animals? If you're implying the article should cover adult/child sex among animals, I didn't notice that it did particularly, nor does it discuss anthropology and other cultures much. Animals have different lack of conscience and perhaps less potential foor psychological damage than humans. They may of course, like human children, suffer physical injury from it sexual acts while they are still children. Maybe some people are conscienceless like animals, most aren't I hope. I doubt richard .d. has said sex between adults and children is ok, otherwise he'd be even less popular lol:) Also if it is to discuss other species, I'm not sure if the title's accurate as this implies humans a little maybe.Merkinsmum 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment Guess why it doesn't. It did earlier, and the people removing all the well-sourced scientific material are now here to campaign for entire deletion of the article. SqueakBox at one time even agreed with many people that due to the fact biosocial perspectives must be included, the article ought to be renamed to something like Adult-juvenile sex. Guess why we never even got the time simply for that bare renaming. The rest of your sweeping, pre-scientific, numinous musings (physical damage due to non-penetrative contact, for instance?) are addressed in my draft. --TlatoSMD (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about physical damage caused by non-penetrative contact? Merkinsmum 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt if anyone did, I certaionly haven't seen anything remotely like that. he may mean oposing child sexual abuse is pre-scientific. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you could find something wrong in my grammar, Tlato, it may be because I went back and summarised my post which was originally longer lol.:) Merkinsmum 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Comment Even though this is dabbling into the fields we've been over and over and over on the actual talkpage, sexual activity by definition includes penetrative as well as non-penetrative forms of contact. As for the word pre-scientific, I use it largely synonymous with ethnocentric, numinous, and reactionary, and I use these terms on those uneducated, non-erudite convictions such as those SqueakBox keeps notoriously referring to as "NPOV" for himself. --TlatoSMD (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You are having a go, mate. You may not have read WP:NPA, if so please do. If you have, I'll just let you gather banworthiness points for yourself for a later date.Merkinsmum 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

!Votes after posting to AN/I

• Keep. per Pairadox. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsensical POV fork. Enough with the POINTy refactoring and moving it around; just nuke it with extreme prejudice. krimpet✽ 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per krimpet. Viridae 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per krimpet -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per Krimpet. It's just a euphemistic fork of another article. Merge into the two other main articles, at best case - Alison 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Its a POV-fork with no content that relates only to this article - each section has a see also link to the main article on the topic, why do we need a page like this one that only summarizes other pages? Also, can people knock off the comments? Make your argument in your entry and don't badger people with an opposing opinion. Obviously a touchy subject, so some extra care is warranted. 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork. Addhoc (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• redirect This should be a redirect to the proposed articcle, other than that, it can be deleted. Yahel Guhan 02:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. After having looked at the article, I see no reason why any relevant references could not be merged elsewhere and this page deleted and then redirected accordingly. I know that the previous discussion closed as a "keep" back in October, but I also acknowledge that consensus can change and this article just feels redundant with Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse, and Age disparity in sexual relationships. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Krimpet and Grand Roi. There has been plenty of time for this article to be merged/refactored/integrated elsewhere appropriately but it hasn't happened and it will, apparently, not happen. We have other articles that cover this topic; this one exists to highlight a minority point of view. Mangojuice 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• True its given enough time but did not develop due to whatever reason. Topic is very sensitive under law, and should be treated somewhat like WP:BLP, unless in good shape its better to delete. Neutrality is highly called for, and the article can be developed in user space and recreated after DRV. Currently merging/redirecting to neutral title Age disparity in sexual relationships would be appropriate, since in contrast, same-aged-minors-sex (no age disparity) is permitted under law. Again the merging, rather than just redirect, would be met with resistance by opposing users. Voiced axix (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think I can put it better than LGRDC. Generally speaking, the project is best served when different points of view are forced to joust in the marketplace of ideas. The existing articles he cited are the appropriate place for that. Xymmax (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork, designed to confuse the difference between adult-child sex and adult-minor sex for toxic progagand purposes. See here for extensive background on where this is coming from. Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork. Tiptoety 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Adds nothing that is not already present in the 3 main articles it draws from. If there is something special about this topic framed in this way, then it has not been properly communicated in this article; I don't think that this is the case, so I think this article should go. Antelan 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While the behaviour of SqueakBox and Pol64 and a couple of like-minded people has been downright disgraceful in the last few days and the nomination is in bad faith, my personal opinion is that on content grounds they're largely correct that the original topic is a better source and some of the content/scope of this one risks bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute. Orderinchaos 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates