- 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 keep. John254 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sexual predator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article violates WP:DICT. It should be deleted and redirected to "child sexual abuse". The term "sexual predator" is a politically loaded colloquialism, and not an official definition you would find in any medical, scientific, or legal publication. This article cites no sources whatsoever showing that a scholarly usage of this term exists. The fact that some mainstream tabloids and politicians use the term "sexual predator" is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion.
A few analogies: The colloquial term "freetard" is frequently used by mainstream media such as The Register. If Wikipedia doesn't allow an article on "freetard" then it shouldn't allow one on "sexual predator" either. If we keep this we may as well create articles on other Daily Mail lingo such as "eurocrat", "lycra lout", "benefit scrounger" etc. See Talk:Sexual predator where deletion has already been discussed. Cambrasa (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have a few problems with the proposed rationale for deletion. First of all, not having an article on one topic does not mean we must not have one on this. Instead of just posting WP:WAX I might also elaborate that Dateline is a little more prestigious than The Register, which is described as an "opinion website" in addition to whatever else it does. Being a politically loaded term does not disqualify it from being on Wikipedia, nor is a lack of "scholarly" references, since notability does, in fact, stem from the fact that something has been noted in well-known sources (e.g., mainstream media, not limited to tabloids). The concept of a sexual predator, finally, is absolutely not synonymous with a perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse, since a predator may not limit the scope of his/her victims to children; this would be an improper redirect. ◄Zahakiel► 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I wish there was no need for an article on this subject, one needs to exist. The term is not limited to those that attack children so I'm not sure a merge to child sexual abuse would be best. Removing the article will not stop this activity from happening, if it did, I would say delete it in a second. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A viable topic, and the article is more than just a dicdef. There is also some pretty good potential for expansion -- and the stereotypical dicdef article doesn't offer this opportunity. 23skidoo (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose sexual predator =/= child sexual abuse, why would all sexual predators be after children anyway? 70.51.8.129 (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I see over 2,400 hits on Google Scholar and over 750 on Google Books. And I can't say I've ever heard of the terms "freetard", "eurocrat", "lycra lout", or "benefit scrounger" — although if Google Scholar or Google Books turned up some valid sources I'd say keep those too. --Pixelface (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are other articles that cover this information in a non-definitional way, no need for duplication. By the way, Google searches mean nothing, so please stop posting them.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is patently false. Those aren't regular Google searches. Those are sources that can be used to write the article. You know...those "sources" everyone talks about? --Pixelface (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just ... wrong. A regular gsearch means nothing, no, but a search of articles from scholarly journals and books do. Celarnor Talk to me 10:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they mean absolutely nothing. The reference to the name sexual predator could be just the word, or a whole peer reviewed look at the subject, but you have no idea when you just post google searches like that. Most of the time, if you actually look through them, they are vacant of any substantive references, so that is why we don't count google searches. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Where I live (Ohio, USA) this is an official term used in the sex offender registration process, as the article mentions (offenders are labeled as "offender" or "predator" based on the nature of the crime). It's worthy of expansion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - adequately sourced, and an official description in some cases. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. In my state, this is the official terminology that is used to describe the perpetrators of certain criminal acts. The government does not use any of the other terms that you have discussed (nor have I heard any of them before, which doesn't mean anything in and of itself, but it does help establish that the term is used), and numerous scholarly papers and books that have been listed higher up include the term. Celarnor Talk to me 10:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW is falling, I do believe. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is also a term used in Georgia (the US state, not the country) law, and is different from a sex offender (see http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/594/1/04.pdf) The rationale for deletion seems to be placing the term "sexual predator" on the same level of notability as "freetard" simply because they are both colloquial terms used in the media, which doesn't really follow. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Sexual predator is legally defined in a number of jurisdictions, and has a distinct definition from similar terms, such as "sex offender". It's a term that will definitely be searched for, and there's plenty to say on the subject. I think we can probably close this one early. DOSGuy (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2008 (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.