| Revision as of 12:25, 14 July 2008 editGeogre (talk | contribs)25,257 edits →Historical pederastic couples← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:34, 14 July 2008 edit undoNecrothesp (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators189,288 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| This article was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago, but the discussion surrounding it was very lightweight, on both sides of the issue. I'm hoping this nomination will get a bit more serious attention and thorough discussion. ] (]) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | This article was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago, but the discussion surrounding it was very lightweight, on both sides of the issue. I'm hoping this nomination will get a bit more serious attention and thorough discussion. ] (]) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Delete''': "Pederast" is a term of law, not nature, and someone attempting to do political graverobbing is either trying to convict a number of people of a crime posthumously or trying to pile up so many corpses as to argue that the act is no crime. Either thing is bad. The "list" cannot be legitimate unless it serves a function ''as a list'' that a category wouldn't perform. Finally, this list is only valid if ''every single'' biographical article of every figure contains the information that X and Y were "pederasts." If the authors and editors of those articles eject or reject it, then this is a POV fork. For three reasons: delete. ] (]) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | :'''Delete''': "Pederast" is a term of law, not nature, and someone attempting to do political graverobbing is either trying to convict a number of people of a crime posthumously or trying to pile up so many corpses as to argue that the act is no crime. Either thing is bad. The "list" cannot be legitimate unless it serves a function ''as a list'' that a category wouldn't perform. Finally, this list is only valid if ''every single'' biographical article of every figure contains the information that X and Y were "pederasts." If the authors and editors of those articles eject or reject it, then this is a POV fork. For three reasons: delete. ] (]) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Seems to me to be a serious, generally well-referenced article. Pederast is not a legal term, as claimed, but a term that has been used historically in exactly the way it is used in the article. It was prodded a few days ago by someone who obviously had a POV reason to get it deleted and claimed it was an attempt to "legitimise paedophilia" (as Geogre also suggests above), which it is clearly not. I can see no attempt here to legitimise anything, just to document. If the "pederasty" is only an allegation then that should be reliably referenced, and in most cases it is (and if it is not, then of course it should be removed) - if an allegation against a deceased person has been publicly made and is appropriately referenced then it is encyclopaedic. -- ] (]) 13:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:34, 14 July 2008
Historical pederastic couples
AfDs for this article:- Historical pederastic couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article began its life as a list, but has over time become the storinghouse for any uncited claim of any person in history whom any editor wants to claim was involved in pederasty. In a number of cases (e.g. Leonardo DaVinci and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein), material appears in this omnibus which has been roundly rejected from the main article, thus turning this list into a de-facto POV WP:FORK. Lastly, the decision for this to be a list, rather than a category (which might be defensible) smacks of original research: the desire to synthesize and publish original commentary on Misplaced Pages, which violates WP:NOR.
This article was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago, but the discussion surrounding it was very lightweight, on both sides of the issue. I'm hoping this nomination will get a bit more serious attention and thorough discussion. Nandesuka (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: "Pederast" is a term of law, not nature, and someone attempting to do political graverobbing is either trying to convict a number of people of a crime posthumously or trying to pile up so many corpses as to argue that the act is no crime. Either thing is bad. The "list" cannot be legitimate unless it serves a function as a list that a category wouldn't perform. Finally, this list is only valid if every single biographical article of every figure contains the information that X and Y were "pederasts." If the authors and editors of those articles eject or reject it, then this is a POV fork. For three reasons: delete. Geogre (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to me to be a serious, generally well-referenced article. Pederast is not a legal term, as claimed, but a term that has been used historically in exactly the way it is used in the article. It was prodded a few days ago by someone who obviously had a POV reason to get it deleted and claimed it was an attempt to "legitimise paedophilia" (as Geogre also suggests above), which it is clearly not. I can see no attempt here to legitimise anything, just to document. If the "pederasty" is only an allegation then that should be reliably referenced, and in most cases it is (and if it is not, then of course it should be removed) - if an allegation against a deceased person has been publicly made and is appropriately referenced then it is encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)