Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child abuse industry

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 no consensus. We seem to agree that while this is a viable topic, the current article is a rather useless unsourced dictionary definition. Until somebody writes a competent stub, I'm redirecting the article to (child abuse, acting solely in my capacity as editor and not as any binding part of this closure. Sandstein 06:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse industry[edit]

This looks like original research to me. meco (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it OR, but it is extremely biased. I can't help but think what would have made the creator so one sided. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is actually pretty neutral, and this term has been very widely used, in scholarly as well as mainstream publications. It serves as the title of a book by Mary Pride. The article should have better references, and should discuss te controversial nature of the term, but is not harmful as currently written. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources. It did appear biased to me. This issue could be deal with elsewhere.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are dozens if not hundreds of independent sources available including many articles and the 1986 book mentioned by Looie496 sufficient to establish notability and create a verifiable article. Per Wikipedia guidelines, that the article is substandard is not grounds for deletion, it is grounds for improving the article. Drawn Some (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trans wiki to Wikitionary and Delete. Dicdef and/or neologism? The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, external links have nothing to do with the specific topic, only general law. Does not accredit it's self notability or verifiability. Fails WP:NPOV I believe. Renaissancee (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search shows a lot of hits for the phrase. Without further checking the results suggest that some are from reliable sources. This appears to be a term that has widespread use so suggestions of OR suggest the article should be improved, not deleted. Similarly with the lack of sourcing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is of some use but not as it's own page. This isn't what I would have thought when hearing the term. Perhaps a section could be added to Child Abuse that said industry has developed. eg. Michael Jackson--The very last username (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment suggests merging and doesn't fit the bolded !vote - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment people indicating no reliable resources aren't looking hard enough, there really are dozens, do a Google search for "child abuse industry" in quotes and then look at the first few pages of hits. Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Victimology. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo sources, no evidence that this is a notable subject.--Travelplanner (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it may need to be re-listed ifmore sources are not added soon.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2009 (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.