Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult grooming

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 delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adult grooming

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

No references supplied, appears to be original research. If and when references to reliable sources are found, it can always be recreated. Attempted prodding for these reasons but was deprodded, so now it's time for AFD. Maratrean (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Proposer doesnt seem to have taken any notice of the discussion on the talk page. To summarise, the word "grooming" is in frequent use in both a child and adult context for the purposes of exploitation of one sort or another. "Adult grooming" is really just grooming and there should really be a general "grooming" article covering both child and adult grooming instead of having child grooming. There is no magical psychological reason why grooming can't happen once the age of 18 is reached. The psychological processes are basically just the same below or above 18.--Penbat (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments are just WP:OR and do nothing to change the fact that we have no WP:RS Maratrean (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No you have got it wrong, AFDs dispute the credibility of the subject of an article's existence not the content. Quite a few Wiki articles dont have sources and that in itself is not a reason for deleting the article.--Penbat (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NRVE - an article lacking reliable sources can be kept, sure, if the topic itself is notable. But, if notability is challenged, then reliable sources are required to demonstrate it. So far you have failed to produce any reliable sources, which goes against notability. 60.225.114.230 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to child grooming; it is unsourced and can't be easily distinguished, but could be a search term. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to child grooming; I couldn't find any sources using this term in the sense it's used in the article. All the searches of scholarly journals yielded only "Primate adult grooming", etc.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. I don't deny that "grooming" techniques as applied to children can also be employed towards adults, but I have never heard it referred to as a separate topic. Perhaps a section saying as much on child grooming is sufficient? Famous_dog 12:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. wikt:groom#Verb includes To attempt to gain the trust of a minor or adult with the intention of subjecting them to abusive or exploitative behaviour such as sexual abuse, human trafficking or sexual slavery. (That entry also appears to have been edited by the creator of the article in question here, but I don't think they're responsible for including the word "adult".) -- Trevj (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2012 (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.