Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolita (term)

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. Multiple ideas about refocusing this page have been proposed, but future discussions should be on the talk page, not AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita (term)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deprodded due to being a possibly controversial deletion by Davey2010. The reason for deletion is that it fails WP:NOTDICT. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Sam Sailor 15:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Personally I believe the term goes beyond DICEDEF and is a notable term in it's own right, Failing that It should be redirected back to the Wikidictionary site but personally I believe it's notable enough to warrant an article. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

Also completely irrelevant but Alpha3031 it would've been more courteous and polite if you did ping me as opposed to you using No ping ..... Just sayin'. –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Sorry, but I assumed you were already going to send it to AfD, so the ping would have been unnecessary. If you weren't then, yeah, I probably should have pinged you and Matt Deres as well. My mistake. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, No worries, That's one drawback to having over 28 thousand watchlisted items - Things get lost rather easily! :), Ah well no worries, –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the term itself is a notable encyclopedic subject. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is only a dictionary definition and I don't see it becoming much more than that. It's a word that gets used for a variety of semi-related insults for young women and it's hardly unique in that regard (as you can tell by the current state of the article). For those suggesting that it could be more than that, could you elaborate? In the fully-formed version of the article that you anticipate, what does it look like? What headings are there? What I anticipate is what the Wiktionary article is: here. At the very least, let's redirect. Matt Deres (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, I do agree with Matt's rationale, which is why I seconded the PROD. There are mentions of how it is used, e.g. [...] child exploitation material depicting the sexual abuse of children, which might be considered somewhat encyclopedic, but it's not something that would be out of place in a dictionary either. Right now, the article is essentially the definition and that of some synonyms collected in one page. I don't really think a redirect is required, since it's an unlikely search term. A more likely search, Lolita directs us to the disambiguation page in a hatnote, which provides a Wikitionary link. I'd think adding a {{wikt}} box to the main article as well as providing an overview of the wider topic might be sufficient. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Matt and Alpha303 or redirect to Wiktionary article.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The talk page mentions a former plan to redirect this page to "nymphet" or vice versa. Essentially synonyms, based on the same Nabokov novel, both "Lolita" and "nymphet" are used to erode sympathy for children whose attention-seeking behavior is perceived by a pedophile as "seductive." If the article survives, it should not be "forked" from nymphet, and its usage should be discussed as we do other dehumanizing terms such as Yid or bitch. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, words are quite capable of being notable enough to justify their own article, as in this case. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Michael Bednarek, Sam, Xezbeth, Davey2010. You saying that words can be notable unto themselves is fine, but I'd like to see some justification that this word can meet that criteria. I'm suggesting we delete or redirect to Wikt because it's clearly only a dictionary definition now (in fact, the entry at the actual dictionary is higher quality than our supposedly encyclopedic entry). You're suggesting it can become more than that. No problem; I'm usually an inclusivist, so you don't have a high bar to jump over to get me to switch sides. :-) Give me an idea of what you think it will become. Obviously you're under no expectation to actually improve the article right now, but could you provide supporting references or even outline what the new, encyclopedic, article would look like? When I think about it, all I can come up with "It got used in a book and then became a widespread term of abuse, meaning X, Y, Z." and that's not exactly a compelling article. Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even ignoring the dozens of novels, plays, music and films with Lolita in their titles and the critical analysis of these individual works, we still have the following, and enough RS to meet GNG for Lolita as a general subject of academic interest:

I think this qualifies as an independent notable topic for a Wikipedia article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandcrumbs, I think that's a good point, and I'd support broadening the article to cover Lolita#References in media in more depth instead of remaining a dictionary definition and being deleted for it. It might even become the main article (I can see Sources and links also being covered in an article about the idea), in which case it might be appropriate to simply spin out the "book" sections and instead use the main article to cover the wider impact on literature and culture. I guess I'm not to sure what exactly the article is about.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose an alternative to deletion:

Split Lolita into Lolita (about the academic and literary usage) and separate Lolita (book)
Move Lolita (term) → Lolita (slang) and redirect and merge to Lolita#Slang
Redirect the left-over Lolita (term) → to new primary topic about Lolita

The topic has expanded beyond the original book, overcome the slang, and become a topic of academic interest on child sexualization in the media.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:55, 26 August 2018 (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.