- 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. We agree that this should not be an article, but views are divided about whether this term is is widely used enough to merit a disambiguation to pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia (as it currently is), or whether it should be deleted, merged or redirected anywhere.
In terms of the arguments presented, I find the WP:DUE argument for deletion compelling: it is undisputed in this discussion that this term is an euphemism intended to help legitimize pedophilia and related practices, which is at best a very WP:FRINGE view, and needs to be treated with the appropriate caution by Wikipedians. This does not rule out that Wikipedia covers the term in one way or another (such as a dab or redirect), but this should not be done without a discussion that addresses the issue of how this should be done without giving fringe views undue prominence. Because the "keep" opinions here by and large do not address this aspect of the discussion, I give them less weight. Sandstein 12:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor-attracted person (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find any real sourcing for this term, outside of the website of the Prostasia Foundation, whose main activity is to try to legalize child porn, and a really fringe book. This seems like a fringe term being turned into a DAB. And, given the lack of scholarship that actually uses this term, it also appears to be WP:OR-y. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedic article. It probably belongs in wiktionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's there already under MAP and the text looks a lot like this page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a disambiguation page. It hardly makes sense to judge it according to the standards of notability and coverage you'd need to write a whole article, because that's not what it's trying to do. And, as Eastmain pointed out, it's a topic of current academic research, which is a bit more than just a "dictionary word". I can think of another recent case (in this one, the academic was put on leave). -- asilvering (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep the sourcing is strong enough for a simple disambig, at least. The reason it’s hard to find good sources talking about this is mainly because a search for “minor attracted person” gets you a face full of rightwing rage pieces about the aforementioned professor (who is non-binary on top of being “liberal acadamea”, two things OANN and co love to demonize). Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I would take that 4W.pub site’s analysis with a grain (or 10) of salt considering a glance at their front page reveals some very… TERFy sounding headlines. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair, that’s apparently core to the website (which is also apparently CC-BY-SA if there are decent bits that would fit in an article somewhere). Though it isn’t as if this is a random radfem site saying this, other comprehensive sites seem to endorse similar conclusions, as does the conservative Sohrab Ahmari. I could give my own analysis of the group, but I tend to find the same things that the sites with very different ideologies have. This doesn’t seem to be a fringe radfem take. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn’t believe conservatives on this either (they’re basically the same as RadFems in this area— i.e. intensely bigoted against sex workers, pornographers, and trans/genderqueer people) but the first source you provided is quite good (and nauseating) in its analysis. But this is about the legitimacy of MAP as a term and not about whether prostasia are basically just NAMBLA-lite. Dronebogus (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't think this page adds much encyclopedic value to really anything. As Imaginatorium, this would be better suited to Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. BakuFromAus (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Academic sources using this term suggest a high specialized, nuanced meaning and intention behind this term. This nuance and intention is not reflected by it's use as a disambiguation page, which seems an inappropriate place for it. Rather, it may be more suitable being incorporated into the body text of larger articles in this topic area, where the deeper intended meaning can be explored.
- As a bit of a follow-up, I think all the options should be considered when deciding what to do with this article:
- Leave it exactly as it is
- Expand it into an true article and not a disamb
- Delete it and do nothing else
- Delete it and add information about it to a relevant subject page
- Number 1 seems to be the worst idea and it doesn't sound like anyone agrees with it. Number 2 I don't feel is appropriate for the aforementioned issue that it's a specialized term and not what I would describe as an "article subject." But if we go that way, this article has to go into hardcore lockdown, just like the pedophilia article, due to the high risk of vandalism and senstive subject matter. Number 3 might be acceptable if it's shown that the term's academic mention is trivial and ultraspecific to one author, whereas Number 4 seems best if academic coverage is deeper.Legitimus (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a notable topic per WP:GNG based on sources provided by Eastmain and Pokelova. The sources should be used to expand the page into a full article describing the term rather than just a DAB page. Current article content does not determine notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: While the page seems unusual, "minor-attracted persons" is an actual term that is used by some people. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Most of the sources listed above are either poor or fleeting coverage related to a recent controversy involving an academic. This is, as it were, a 'rebranding' euphemism which is very much non-mainstream and should not be legitimized with its own article per WP:DUE. As a disambiguation page, it seems unnecessary and confusing. While it could in a literal reading technically refer to any of those three things, this seems to mainly be a term for the one that is the paraphilia as listed in the DSM-5, which is pedophilia. We can just delete this. Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Just a euphemism for paedophile. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A "minor-attracted person" is just a time-consuming way to say the noun "pedophile", and Wikipedia already has an article on pedophilia. It can be added to the Pedophilia article as a ==Slang== section for contemporary terminology meaning pedophile. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Chronophilia which covers the same subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Chronophilia is a page for a different term which covers the same topic. If the answer ends up being redirect, I'd suggest List_of_paraphilias#M along with a minor merge. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pedophilia as the common use for this phrase is a euphemism for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This term is a euphemism for pedophile used by a small minority to destigmatize pedophilia and those afflicted. Pedophilic disorder is still listed in the DSM-5 as a subset of paraphilic disorders. Paraphilia or Chronophilia are more accurate and common use umbrella terms. Per WP:UNDUE there is good reason to simply delete this article. Wreckoning90125 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I doesn't seem to be a real disambiguation page. It's a page about a term and sub-categories that fall under that term. So I removed the disambiguation template from the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm reverting this change - judging by the comments here there's no consensus for that change. Some arguments in response to this AfD depend on it being a disambiguation page, so making this edit during the AfD is problematic. If the AfD ends in keep or no consensus it might be time to revisit the question, but again, probably not unilaterally, as this looks contentious. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's a dab for three potential redirects, so I evaluate this under WP:R#CRD rather than WP:GNG. Euphemism or not (FWIW, I consider it to be one), the term is out now in the wilderness of academic and general public discourse. The Google Scholar search results appear sufficient to meet WP:R#KEEP. –Austronesier (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The arguments by Legitimus are very convincing. Acidsetback (talk) 05:59, 7 December 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.