Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek and pedophilia

Star Trek and pedophilia

Speculation is not fact. Even speculation by the press. Denni ☯ 03:16, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Boxclocke 03:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I hate to say it, Keep. That specualtions are made by the press, and by police, and fairly widely reported, is a fact. This article merely notes that fact. It does not claim that the specualtions are accurate, merely that they ahve been made. It seems reasonably NPOV to me. DES ^(talk) 03:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A single original story, which doesn't even suggest anything more than coincidence amounts to nothing notable. If this was widely reported and discussed, than yes, I would support it's inclusion in wikipedia in *some* article. Let's pretend it was real: why create an article? There's a widely beleived correlation between crime novels and crime, but we don't create a specific article for each in every combination of specific crime novel and specific crime. Instead we make an appropriate comment in the article about the book (if it's pecular that specific book), or to the crime (if a type of reading material is common to the crime), but we don't (or shouldn't) have an article on every conceivable crime/book/tv/movie/work-of-art combination that some local cop noticed. --rob 04:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but I am the author of the original article.) As pointed out above, I was merely noting that the correlation was considered and widely discussed, not that it was necessarily true - it could be like the Sexual Rainbow Party, which was a subject of wide discussion despite flimsy evidence the phenomenon actually existed. I think that if we keep that article, this is worth keeping as well. Oh, and here's another recent article on the subject from Macleans; this isn't based on just one news story. Soultaco 04:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, if we follow the Maclean's article, we can either create a Star Wars and pedophilia article also. or we can find an appropriate existing article, and put it there (*if* sufficient notability exists). I'm sure there must be hundreds of *other* apparent commonalities or patterns that police see (or think they see). Also, putting this "theory" in an existing abuse-related article will subject it to appropriate peer review, by active editors on the subject. Passing off a POV in such an article will get you reverted much quicker than in some obscure little article, nobody sees. --rob 12:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps this could be merged into an existing article, but I didn't find one that seemed particularly appropriate. Suggestions? Soultaco

Strong delete Inherently POV; no matter how matter-of-factly the article is written, the discussion of such a correlation on what is presumably a coincidence is always going to result in a skewed point of view. Trekkies, as abhorrent as they may be, may not necessarily all be paedophiles. Consideration of a correlation does not make for an encyclopaedic article. Proto t c 11:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does specifically note that the hypothesis does not imply that all or even most Trekkies are pedophiles - rather, it implies that pedophiles are attracted to Star Trek, which is quite different, as it says nothing whatsoever about Star Trek fans in general (who could also be attracted to Star Trek for other reasons entirely). Soultaco

Delete as per Proto. Can never be NPOV. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 12:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DES ^(talk), above. --Nicodemus75 13:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anything to make the Trekkies mad, man. -HX
Keep. This is a controversial theory that has already received a fair bit of attention, and will likely continue to do so, if only to disprove it. The controversy is what makes this Wikipediable. We can't go around deleting things we don't like, or even things that are found not to be credible. We haev an article on the Flat earth theory. Why not this? Ground Zero 14:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DES. --GraemeL 15:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DES. Trollderella 15:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ground Zero. Sdedeo 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — unfortunate, but plausible. Actually I would think this article could be generalized into psychology of pedophiles. Also why isn't there a Clergy and pedophilia article since that phenomenon is authentic and so well documented? — RJH 15:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the article is dealt with in a really neutral manner so erasing this would just be censorship Yuckfoo 18:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep but add a related article on Star Trek, Sadomasochism, and the Renaissance Fair]. Voyager640 19:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "... and paedophilia". Erwin Walsh
- Comment Given that Star Trek is s U.S. production, if the article is kept, the AmE spelling "pedophilia" ahould be kept. Caerwine 23:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feel me up, Scotty, Mom's in the other side of the department store. --Jscott 21:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jscott. ;-) Acetic Acid 03:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. The theory is BS however it has received some media attention. Needs to be handled carefully so as to maintain NPOV. If it becomes a Trekkie-bashing affair, the article will be worthless. 23skidoo 05:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rob. -- Kjkolb 06:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
One aside in one LA Times article and this thing gets spun up into a Wikipedia article. Delete. --Calton | Talk 09:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Anecdotal at best. However, would merit future inclusion if scientifically supported. PlainSight 14:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd like to see where this is headed --Dysepsion 16:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. One case does not make a theory. Iff this becomes more widely accepted (which it won't, would be my guess), then it would deserve an article. Xoloz 17:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single newspaper mention later withdrawn by original source = no story. NPOV-ing and removing original research gets you "LA reporter claims Toronto police connected Star Trek and pedophilia; police retract" with no possibility of expansion that is not original research. — mendel ☎ 18:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Carlton, PlainSight, and mendel. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Non-notable theory, apparently since withdrawn, not held up by a major news source. --Mysidia (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the statement is verifiable, it's substance is not notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous, frivolous and outrageous! Hamster Sandwich 04:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be true that there was speculation, but the speculation itself is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. There isn't really anything to say about this topic, and it shows. Isomorphic 04:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation in a press report and later withdrawn by the original source. 213.78.162.189 15:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aimless speculation based on a coincidence. Not encyclopedic material. --Ritchy 21 August 2005