Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Morality and the Law (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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Morality and the Law

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A non-notable radio conversation defending pedophilia. mostly fluff rehashing the contents of the the broadcast, citing other books written by Foucault, the main defender of child sexual abuse here. any relevant content is already available at French petition against age of consent laws page. this is only discussed in context of the wider postmodernist support for child sexual abuse during the 1970s and more, and enough content isn't available to justify independent page.

a previous discussion 15 years ago was closed keep on the basis of it being "important" and that Wikipedia shouldn't "hide" information like this, but in these years there haven't been any improvement to the article or the notability status, and since all relevant information is already available in the other page, I don't consider anything of value will be lost if this is deleted. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (with heavy trimming) to Michel Foucault per WP:ATD. This is significant enough for Wikipedia to cover, though it may not need its own article. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads: there isn't anything to merge. all the relevant content is already in the relevant articles. nearly all of the article is just an expansion of the talking points of the interview. there have been multiple attempts to redirect the page to somewhere, but have been reverted. taking a look at the talk page, the arguments to not redirect simply mention the existence of secondary sources that actually just have some passing mention of this without any meaningful content to be added here. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This issue has already been discussed in 2006, and my point now is the same I gave 15 years ago. Removing this article would be a form of censorship. Never mind if we don't agree with FOucalt's opinion. The importance of the article relies exactly on the fact that Foucault, being a renowned philospher, presents a point of view that is unique and divergent from the mainstream opinion on the issue. However absurd you may think his position is, the best way for one to defeat his arguments is bringing them to light, and not suppressing them under the rug. Finally, reopening an already closed discussion is something at least 'strange' because no new facts justify a second turn. It sounds like not accepting the result of the first discussion. I suggest we bring the body of the first discussion and copy-paste here so that all previous opinions, either pro or against, are incorporated in this second turn and taken into account again. All the best to you. Paulo Andrade discuss. — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulo Andrade:, I don't intend to bludgeon this discussion, but I must mention there is no censorship or suppression intended here, nor it will result in that. his views and arguments are mentioned at both French petition against age of consent laws and Michel Foucault#Underage sex and pedophilia. there is no need for a separate article rehashing the arguments in excruciating detail based only on Foucault's work, and nothing else. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a repository or directory of every little lecture Foucault gave. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's reasoning seems to be mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Foucalt is a renowned philosopher, and although some of his ideas may be disagreeable or perhaps reprehensible, they should be covered on Wikipedia if it satisfies WP:GNG. Here, this interview was broadcast on radio, published in books and part of public debate in the 70's. Foucalt was an important figure, and this is a noteworthy topic. Definitely enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Hocus00 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources included are decent enough. Plenty of published works on this, sources etc that can be used. AfD is no clean-up service though. Notable enough for continued inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am leaning towards keep, but, I'd like to let this run another week given this is the second nomination and it's a bit of a touchy subject. Let's keep things civil here and evaluate the subject based on policy - does it meet WP:GNG? Half the article isn't sourced and it appears to be a lot of WP:OR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am a little surprised to see all the keep !votes here. I mean, seriously? How does this article pass WP:GNG? The entire article is an original commentary on that interview. The article appears to have created an illusion of four distinct references; but, in reality it has only two. One is the transcription of that interview and the other is a book written by Foucault himself, none of which are secondary sources. The real question is not about censorship. It is about whether the topic is notable enough to warrant a separate Wikipedia entry or not, based on an analysis of the secondary sources that discusses the topic. That is not the case here. I even did a thorough search on Google to see if there were any other sources that covered the topic at length. Nothing significant comes up. A clear GNG fail. Mosesheron (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This radio interview is not notable enough to warrant its own article; it clearly fails GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary above. A glance at the references is enough to make this clear: three works by Foucault, and one interview with him. That is, no sources independent from the article's subject. Sandstein 21:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree, this page appears to fail WP:GNG. I think it would be best to merge with the main article on Foucault Bgrus22 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough based on coverage. A redirect for this term isn't warranted - it's too general a term and few if anyone typing it in will expect to land on Michel Foucault. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:40, 15 June 2021 (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.