The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . Seems ripe for a redirect, but the arguments for delete hold sway. As noted below, a merge of automated code isn't really feasible, but it would seem everyone agrees that, in the absence of this, Portal:Sexuality would be improve by at least some of the content previously found here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sexual fetishism[edit]

Let's start with: one of the selected articles is Pedophilia, which–and I could be wrong about this–is not a fetish, but a psychiatric disorder. File that one under: reasons not to create content automatically. Second, there is one featured image. The entire portal has less content than the navbox of the same name. Finally, we already have a (much, much better) Portal:Sexuality. Leviv ich 04:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the way they are adding info, soon it will grow up in better portal and I am sure that there is enough scope to do that, probably some more time to develop it? and then we think of deletion if it's not improved much? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete problematic topic, duplicates Portal:Sexuality. It is just sick to class Pedophilia as a sexual fedish - it is the worst kind of crime. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia is included because it is classed as such due to the transclusion of Template:Sexual fetishism (and then under "Controversial/Illegal"). Perhaps you should raise it on the templates talk page?--Auric talk 11:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but at least in the template it is labeled as controversial/illegal so the reader knows there is a problem with calling sex with children a sexual fetish. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, why have this when the much-superior Sexuality portal encompasses the topic? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Sexual fetishism is a very broad topic that is only a niche part of sexuality as a whole so there is scope for two portals here. The inclusion of paedophilia does seem a little off at first, but medically it is classed as a paraphilia just as foot fetishism is so it is not incorrect to have it here from that perspective even though they have very significantly different degrees of harm and legality. Whether it should be included here is something that should be discussed by editors, but whatever the consensus decision that does not justify deletion of the portal. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As a second choice I would support merging and redirecting to Portal:sexuality, but that is very much second choice for the reasons above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no community of editors working on this to discuss with. The inclusion of child sexual abuse is based on a template - without context - and the editors who made the template never would guess the template would be misused to populate a portal. Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Pedophilia used to be classified as a paraphilia but it is now classified as a "paraphilic disorder", as of DSM-V (and, to some extent, DSM-IV-TR before it). DSM distinguishes between ordinary sexual kinks (paraphilia) and the kind that are diagnosable (paraphilic disorders). This is a complicated subject that our articles actually handle well (Pedophilia, Paraphilia, DSM-V, etc.). In the navbox, pedophilia is listed as one of the "controversial/illegal" fetishes, which provides necessary context, as does our article. The portal does not. The automatic generation of the portal is what led to the blunder of failing to distinguish between psychiatric disorders and ordinary sexual kinks. It's a great example of why any page created on Wikipedia 'requires a human being to spend more than a minute creating it. Even taking the pedophilia thing out of it, this portal is too narrow and duplicative of Portal:Sexuality. And while I've spent some time finding this one particular problematic portal that's been around for five months, I have no desire to comb through another 3,400 or so of them looking for these types of problems. Hence, nuke from orbit. Leviv ich 18:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the usual caveat of opposing a merge because reserving the right to nominate the parent portal for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Deleting a portal because you disagree with one entry on it is silly.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge possible as there is literally nothing in the code that can be merged.
Delete - Redundant with P:SEX Guilherme Burn (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.