Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to either Amazon.com#Controversies (an article sub-section) or Amazon.com controversies (a standalone article).

In spite of the obviously controversial, to put it mildly, nature of the topic and the lengthy discussion, I think consensus here is pretty clear cut. AfDs are not, of course, votes, but considering the numbers is particularly useful for this AfD. I broke down all of the comments below into the following categories, with totals to follow.

  • Delete: 6
  • Delete or Merge: 12
  • Merge: 8
  • Merge or Keep: 1
  • Keep (including "keep and rename"): 8
  • Discounted !Votes: (10 total, 8 keeps/don't deletes by IPs or new accounts who did not articulate valid arguments, 1 "keep somewhere" with no explanation, 1 delete with no rationale)

So in total I find there to be 35 valid !votes/comments in this AfD (note: even were I to count a few more of the random IP votes, which I don't think is warranted, this would not change my reading of the outcome). Out of those 35, only a small minority were in favor of keeping or deleting outright. Over half of the 35 supported deletion, but two-thirds of those found merging acceptable. Even of the 14 outright keep/delete !votes, several seemed to intimate that a merge would be acceptable.

Looking to the specific arguments rather than the !votes we find a similar story. Almost no one is suggesting that the controversy surrounding the book lacks any notability—i.e. we should probably talk about it somewhere. On the other end, few of the outright !keep voters (JoshuaZ is one exception) are articulating an argument against a merge. The argument that the notability of the book comes primarily or exclusively in the context of Amazon.com's retail choices (and not for the book itself per say) is more convincing and supported by a supermajority, i.e. most or all of those arguing for merge and/or for deletion.

As such a merge seems to be where consensus lies, and we even almost have agreement as to the target. If the newly created Amazon.com controversies remains an article it belongs there, otherwise Amazon.com#Controversies would be the target. Editors should carry out a merge to one of those as soon as possible, and folks can haggle about where the Amazon "controversies" belong later. Please note that Phillip R. Greaves also currently exists as a redirect to this article and will need to be directed to the eventual merge target for The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure.

One final note: merging obviously does not preclude later expansion of the material into a standalone article should additional coverage (and changed consensus) suggest that that's the best course. For now though the consensus to merge and redirect this article is quite clear in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure[edit]

The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable book which has only come to be discussed because of its subject matter (paedophilia) and sale on Amazon.com. It is not in itself a notable book and fails WP:GNG. No objection to a merge to Amazon.com Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge into Amazon.com Drat! Beat me to it. I was going to nominate this for deletion when Delicious carbuncle got in ahead of me by literally seconds. Totally obscure smut manual of no inherent notability whatsoever, known only because of Amazon controversy that will be forgotten in a few weeks. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we should wait a few weeks to see if it actually is forgotten or not. Amazon ran into a controversy surrounding a similar book in 2002 (eight years ago), and that controversy is still being discussed in the media even today. It certainly wasn't "forgotten". Stonemason89 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be missing the point - the controversy may be notable, the book is not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it is a unremarkable book, and find the topic repulsive, but the contorversy could be lost on the Amazon page, and also doesn't this fall under possible Internet censorship? Maybe a cross link between censorship / Amazon / etc?* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.253.81 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with deletion as deleting the mere mention or review of a book is just as bad or worse as banning or censoring the book itself. What are we afraid of? The information? The mere fact someone has written about a Taboo subject does not qualify any review or book to be banned regardless of content. If we head down the censorship road where does it stop? The Nazis tried that and it failed to work for them too. An open society by it's very freedom of being open for publishing thoughts and discussions on any subject is the very basis for all our hard won constitutional freedoms. If you don't wish to read about a subject, then don't. But don't impose your value system or beliefs on others. Freedom of the press is sacrosanct. Demosthanes2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demosthanes2 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Demosthanes2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - mention Nazis and you've already lost the debate - Alison ❤ 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another lol Seconding that motion, Sadads (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I commented on his talk page pointing out Godwin's law, Sadads (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, alternatively, merge to Amazon.com#Controversies. Has received a great deal of coverage already (all of it negative for Amazon) from many mainstream sources. Another possible solution would be to expand it to include the other "controversial" (obscene, racist, illegal) books that Amazon has chosen to sell or not sell in the past, and the controversies surrounding them; then, possibly rename it Amazon.com controversies or Controversies surrounding Amazon.com's sales policies. There have been enough such controversies by now, and they have received enough attention, that they definitely do deserve their own article, even if only as a group rather than a separate article for each controversy. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable book with just a fleeting mention due to the Amazon link. At best, merge the relevant parts to Amazon.com#Controversies - Alison ❤ 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Amazon controversies per Stoneman, as much as I disagree with the nature of the book, the fact that it was reported by a newspaper or two suggests that it reflects on Amazon, Sadads (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I think that, as was mentioned by Stonemason, this article would fit well with Amazon's other controversies. Kelvari (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: Just because this book is controversial it should not be deleted. It can be a very good educational resource for therapists and counselors. I work with SAY (sexually agressive youth) and it's literature like this book that helps us teach our children to avoid situations that lead to pedophiles molesting and raping children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.162.46 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 108.17.162.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete: This is now text book material for preventing and spotting signs of possible child / adult relations. This can lay ground work of very useful future preventions. Especially for those accused falsely by estranged spouses / family. Child Protective Services can actually have something in their arsenal other than pure speculation to remove a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.227.147 (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 174.55.227.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Amazon's removal may be the cause of its fame, but articles covering that incident certainly have added sufficient coverage of both the book's content and its author for this article to satisfy WP:GNG. __meco (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Amazon.com#Controversies: per Stonemason. Quite apart from the suggestions about the theraputic value of this tome being arrant nonsense, it's appropriate in such a section, and very unlikely to have any staying power as a story otherwise. (That being said, anyone want to bet me a dime against $100 that this isn't going to be a long, long debate?)  Ravenswing  14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge the book itself appears to be illiterate nonsense, so it's really a story about Amazon, not the book.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep somewhere or the pedos win.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WHY DELETE IT IF THE BOOK ISN'T BEING BANNED. IT'S SILLY AND A WASTE OF TIME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.126.19 (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 110.159.126.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Amazon. The controversy is perhaps notable (or at least a verifiable example of an ongoing debate) the book is not notable.--Scott Mac 13:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This book simply isn't notable. The controversy may merit a mention in the Amazon article, but I'm unsure if leaving a redirect here is worth it. AniMate 21:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author of the book appears to have become notable in his own right, too, since articles are now being published that focus on him specifically: [1]. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Book is notable people are just using their emotions and personal opinions to decide whether or not it is notable. If this book were about basketball nobody would care. I too find the material disgusting - but I find censorship more disgusting. 110.168.143.53 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 110.168.143.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:AGF, please. Strange as the notion of handling issues in a logical, dispassionate manner seems to be to many people, there are numerous editors on Wikipedia who seek to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in a fair and balanced manner. For myself, since I am not a mindreader, I presume that people usually fall into that category rather than assume that those voting in a way I don't like are "just using their emotions and personal opinions."  Ravenswing  03:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't run across Basketball-Pedophilia analogies every day.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: GustavM has weighed in on this discussion here. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to Amazon.com#Controversies: non notable in itself. Heiro 04:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rename I believe that this does warrant an entry to itself to cover everything but I do think that this should probably be renamed in order to encompass ALL of the information about Amazon's policies about keeping the boylover books on as well as the continued coverage Amazon is getting over the continued removal of all boylover/pedophilic material from the site. There's so much information about this that it might be too much to put under the controversy section of amazon. I also believe that PETA's insistence on removing dogfighting could be added in here as a branch off of the pedophile book removals. It could be renamed to "Removal of offensive materials from amazon" (or something like that) in order to include not only the boylover/pedophile books, but anything else that was removed under those pretenses. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete: Less-known book and it's very controversial. It belongs to online trade shops like amazon and shouldn't be listed there.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Controversial" is not at all a reason to delete; in fact, it's the exact opposite, since the book is notable because of its controversial nature, not in spite of it. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The book has been removed from Amazon, and its ten seconds of fame is fast receding into history. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. meco (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't nominate this for rescue. It has tons of eyes on it already, its not like help is needed to find sourcing.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nominated for rescue, it's nominated so the ARSe squad can pile on the 'keep' votes. Pardon my ABF but I've seen it happen enough times already <_< - Alison ❤ 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The book has become notable through controversy, and should remain. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is cited information in here that's hard to find in other places if you're looking for it, because there is such a torrent of info. While it may be 'forgotten', it can easily be removed in a few months if that's so. *Right now*, though, is the best time for the collection of actual information on the subject. There are 2300 articles in Google News on this. Declarations that it 'will' be forgotten are unprovable at this time. Information should be collected, edited, parsed, cited and supported, and we can revisit this early in 2011. --Thespian (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I came to find out about the controversy (not the book) and that this is the latest of a series of books to be removed with this subject area, an article about how and why books are banned would be interesting. I heard about this on MSNBC's tech page. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Censorific (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Censorific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, useful info on a notable book. --JN466 21:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with the Amazon.com article. Self-published book that is completely non-notable apart from the Amazon.com controversy. Keep votes seem to mostly confuse the notability of the Amazon.com controversy with notability for the book itself. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. STOP CENSORSHIP. — TheReal s0nicfreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Merge to Amazon.com#Controversies. This book is only notable in relation to that incident. I don't see book reviews or reception coverage like we have in articles about other books. The section on the author seems to fall under WP:NOT#NEWS. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User: Toonmonk has weighed in on this discussion here. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Why was this up for deletion? The information is accurate, I believe. There is nothing inherently offensive about information. For example, if you wanted to speak out about this book, you probably need to know about it first. Information is not just needed for promotion, but for its opposite. Know thy enemies, and never ignore them, if that's the reason for this deletion suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.195.158 (talk) — 130.58.195.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete, maybe merge a small stub of the info into the Amazon article. There are a lot of books published, and I'd say as a general rule a book that can't find an actual publisher is almost certainly not notable. The article actually contains not that much about the book itself, but it doesn't appear to be scholarly work or otherwise of value. The only reason to keep the article is the controversy. If the article is kept, it should definitely be renamed to something like ''The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure'' controversy. But what is there to say about the controversy, really? Not much. And WP:NOTNEWS, and we are an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid broadsheet, and notoriety is not the same notability. Anything that needs to be said can be said in a couple of sentences in the Amazon.com article. Herostratus (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a book not notable on its own, which cut a snow-drizzle of interest because it exposed what unmonitored self-publishing via amazon can lead to. It's a classic "one event" wikipedia article, and now purely serves to advertise a book designed to help pedophiles victimize children, far beyond any broader interest it could generate without the wikipedia/google mojo nexus.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "wikipedia/google mojo nexus"? That's a new one.... (shakes head) Stonemason89 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in strongly condensed form into Amazon.com#Controversies. All coverage about, and therefore all notability of, this book is related to its treatment by Amazon.  Sandstein  07:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Amazon.com#Controversies per Sandstein, does not appear to be inherently notable.--PinkBull 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 19:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I originally closed this as a delete, but there's no harm in more discussion here, as the difference between a merge and a delete here is particularly thin. Courcelles 19:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or move because notability is not inherited and the book itself doesn't seem to be notable independent of the controversy. As we saw with WP:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) (yes, it was really nominated 18 times--and only deleted on the last one!), merely being a controversial topic does not protect an article from being deleted (that article was subsequently discussed on DRV many times; it is currently a redirect). Deletion is not automatically censorship. It may be appropriate to have a separate article on the controversy (hence the move option) but it is not appropriate to have an article on the book since the book is not notable independent of the Amazon controversy. On the other hand, the information in the article may be useful elsewhere and notability generally is not a reason to remove content. --NYKevin @881, i.e. 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep because people just want to delete it because of the controversy. This is a useful guidebook for pedophiles and needs to be maintained. Woobarcat (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)— Woobarcat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dude's indef'd, too. Jack ;)[reply]

  • Merge, WP:TABLOID teapot tempest but one which was heard quite widely. The book itself is not in the least bit notable, the only thing which is notable is the controversy, and that only really in the context of Amazon. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again. Non-notable book that amounts to trolling the whole world. Jack Merridew 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Amazon. Probably not notable enough on its own, but merits a discussion in that article. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A completely non-notable book. Any mention of the Amazon dust-up can be cited in a sentence in the Amazon article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - classic news dust-up. "WP:TABLOID teapot tempest...." Too much drama, too much free publicity for pedofiles. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The last thing we need is to give another excuse for an idiot to sue us. 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
There's no way that guy's lawsuit is going to get any traction. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading tip. Wikipedia has a policy page called Wikipedia:Child protection. On its talk page there are some interesting discussions, some if which clearly would add useful perspectives to many of the comments and opinions presented in the current discussion. See for instance Wikipedia talk:Child protection#CNN goes on the warpath against Amazon.com. __meco (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete Passing news story per WP:NOTNEWS, not a notable book in its own right.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book was well-publicized in many media reports, which were not general reports about Amazon but just that and a few other books. We might consider a merge with the other books banned by Amazon in response to the media push, but I think this would also be counterproductive, because the resulting article would tend to become open-ended. We should not create a "controversies about Amazon" POV fork, nor should we try to cover all the twists and turns in evaluation of individual books in the main Amazon article. I'll add that however short it is, I found this article quite useful because it cited a reference showing that PETA was using the banning of this book to push for banning of books about dog-fighting, a good empirical example of the "slippery slope" in action.[3] I should emphasize that, as I've said before, WP:NOTNEWS does not call for deletion of the subjects of widespread news coverage. Wnt (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOTNEWS exists because people often dash off to their computers to create articles in response to stories in the news without considering the overall notability. This appears to be an example of the phenomenon. I would be quite happy to see this information merged into Amazon.com or another article, but it fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is it about that guideline, that everyone who cites it always ignores what it says? "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". And the WP:GNG still says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is very clearly true. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, look at the guideline! "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." That says the exact opposite of what you imply! Wnt (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete Completely fails WP:Notability (books). Per WP:NOTNEWS, we do not have an article about a book to record that there was a media fuss at a certain time. The incident (Amazon selling/withdrawing book) is not sufficiently notable (NOTNEWS) to warrant an article, so if the editors at Amazon.com feel it helpful, some material could be used there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again again, look at the guideline! "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
Now it's clear that the very first criterion for the books notability policy, same as the GNG, is met here. Many news articles talked about this book, and they did not simply regurgitate a plot (and weren't just press releases); they discussed what it said.
I should add that while it is not necessary to retain the article, there is much historical significance to this. The book was used in a general crusade against well-known companies selling user-generated books without having a publisher going over and deciding whether it is morally acceptable to publish it or not. It clarifies, as never before, the private publisher's primary role as a censor rather than a mere typesetter and book-binder. Wnt (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are making an argument for why an article on the incident should exist. The book notability guideline does not cover the case where a storm erupts over a company selling a particular book. Such a storm does not make the book notable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between a "storm" and a "review"? Reviews make a book notable according to WP:Notability (books). We could have an article Amazon.com banning of The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure, but that would be stupid, no? Wnt (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The book needs to establish notability beyond the Amazon row, which it has failed to do. Merge/delete is still the best option.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are weak though over the GNG bar (if just barely). In such cases I tend to go with "is this really notable" as a metric. And my opinion is strongly on the side of no here. Feel free to treat this as an IAR !vote to delete. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the creation of the Amazon controversies article, I'm okay with a merge there as I don't think a short mention there would be undue weight (as it would in the main Amazon article). Hobit (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously, the book itself is anything but notable. Added to this, WP:CHILD would otherwise tip it over to the delete side. The incident itself is notable, and can be added to amazone.com article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has become a subject of significant controversy., with sources to show it. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just split off the controversy section from the Amazon.com article to create a new article, Amazon.com controversies. If we end up merging this page, we could merge it there instead of to the main Amazon.com article. That way, WP: UNDUE would not be as much of an issue. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems likely to quickly become a troublesome content fork, but that is a whole other discussion. I note that this book is already mentioned - what content would you add if this AfD closes as a merge? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hardly a "troublesome content fork". Previously, nearly 40% of the Amazon.com article consisted of controversy, which is a violation of WP: UNDUE that several editors had complained about previously on that article's talk page. Moving the controversies out of the Amazon.com article was therefore a necessary step. If anything is "troublesome", it was the status quo ante. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure you are right. What content do you think needs to be added to that article about this book? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If merge is the ultimate result, the reaction to the book from groups like Enough is Enough, the American Bookseller's Association and PETA would be worth adding, since it counts as notable criticism. Exactly where Phillip R. Greaves's name should redirect is another question; while he's received a great deal of coverage, I don't know if having a biography of him would be appropriate, whether it would be wiser to briefly mention him in Pedophile activism or some other such article, or whether it would be best to mention him briefly in Amazon.com controversies along with the book controversy and then have his name redirect there. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The book is notable for the controversy it created. The fact that it a was a controversy connected with Amazon is more of an argument for a mention in the main Amazon article with a link to the article on the book, since we have a fair bit of material about this controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Pedophile’s_Guide_to_Love_and_Pleasure&oldid=1166301354"