Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Star Trek and pedophilia (second 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek and pedophilia (second nomination)

Unencyclopedic. This is an incredibly weak premise for a wikipedia article since it is based on a throw away paragraph in a newspaper article. Yes, it got some attention from a few bloggers but it remains pure speculation based, it seems, on a joke by a few police officers in Toronto. This should not be an article until and unless there is evidence that it's a credible theory ie it's being discussed seriously in academic circles, there are published articles on it in the media (rather than a passing, half-joking reference) etc. Homey 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment here is the original afd discussion (result: no consensus): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek and pedophilia -- MisterHand 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no statistical link between the two, so it's conjecture, not fact. scope_creep 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 17:15, 31 December 2005 (GMT)
• Delete this ridiculous piece of garbage. --Fang Aili 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 18:31, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep According to an article in Mclean's (May 30, 2005), there is forthcoming research on the subject: "Seto and Eke are continuing their research, and will soon start combing through the police files of close to 400 child-porn offenders across Ontario, searching for commonalities and patterns of behaviour. One of the things they will be looking for is reports of suspects with sci-fi collections, especially Star Trek." I think it should, at present, be rewritten to emphasize the uncertain nature of the research, but a definite keep. Note the McLean's article was 4 pages and dedicated to this topic as well. It may well be conjecture (or better put, a hypothesis), but notable conjecture as it is the subject of current academic research. --Hansnesse 18:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

When and if the "forthcoming research" is published there will be a basis for an article. Until then it remains purely speculative without any non-anecdotal evidence to back it up.Homey 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia is not infinite, as this article basically says 'Star Trek and paedophilia are not really correlated'. --Last Malthusian 18:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the McLean's artilce is correct, and there is new research forthcoming on this topic, then we can re-create this article, or add the findings to an existing article. But for the time being, this material is too speculative. -Willmcw 18:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article is based on opinion rather than peer-reviewed studies in to the backgrounds of this particular type of sexual offender. Until such peer-reviewed literature is published, this article shouldn't exist. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --NeoJustin 19:01, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If and when actual research demonstrates a link the article can be rewritten. Per WP:Not, not a crystal ball. Unpublished, non-peer reviewed, unwritten research does not merit an encyclopedia article. Durova 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Unproven claims permeate areas like Alternative Medicine on Wikipedia. They are just notable unproven claims. Specifically by pointing out where the research stands I think this would be useful to a Wikipedia user. Truth should not be the criteria for inclusion, since it would eliminate important but false scientific hypotheses (Phlogiston theory for example) or yet poorly supported hypotheses (String theory for example). The question should be one of notability of the hypothesis, not its truth.--Hansnesse 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, that is true. However there is no assertion of notability for this theory. -Willmcw 19:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just an opinion, original research. Unencyclopedic.--Dakota ~ ε 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This was a single blurb in a few newspapers, since nothing further has come of it I think it's just a coincidence and it's time to delete now. Ashibaka tock 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ridiculous nonsense. Existence of article based upon a throwaway line taken out of context is clear attempt at POV-pushing, with no way to fix without deletion. DreamGuy 21:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not worthy of its own article. --LesleyW 22:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete This kind of misuse of information is unscientific, unencyclopedic, and extremely ridiculous. --DanielCD 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is absolutely no science here. Just an urban legend, and one that could be harmful at that. There is not even a statistical correlation, only a speculation of relation!! Passing off entertaining rumors as if they have any credibility at all is something that can hurt Wikipedia as a whole. If it were really notable, it could be mentioned somewhere perhaps, but with the strong caveat added that it's just a rumor. --DanielCD 16:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Benami 05:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I mean, come on. The Land 13:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Without any basis apart from anecdotal evidence a topic like this doesn't deserve an article. Cedars 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as per The Land. Qarnos 22:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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.