Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Albanian pederasty (2nd nomination)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Juliancolton (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 5 February 2010 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:12, 5 February 2010 by Juliancolton (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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. Quite clear consensus exists that the topic is not suitable as an encyclopedic entry. –Juliancolton | 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Albanian pederasty

AfDs for this article:

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

Essay by banned user pushing a POV. None of these sources appear to be about "Albanian pederasty", which returns a grand total of one google books hits, which says "Albanians were themsevles convinced pederasts". I strongly doubt something like that that is a reliable source, or NPOV. Pcap ping 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment, neutral. Banned user or not, the first AfD ended with an overwhelming number of keep votes less than a year ago. Any potential participants should at least take a closer look at it. — Rankiri (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Keepper the sources used as inline references in the article, and per the Google Book search results cited in the previous AFD . Writers in the 19th and early 20th century reported it was a part of the culture of the country. The fact that some "banned editor" touched the article at some point does not give the subject cooties preventing there being an encyclopedia article about it, when it satisfies notability. Edison (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete and merge content into Pederasty#Albania. There is no need for a separate article. Pederasty as part of the muslim culture has been outspread in all muslim countries, but I would be very surprized to see an article named Turkish Pederasty, Bosnian Pederasty, Arabic Pederasty, Persian_Pederasty, Iraqi_Pederasty or Egyptian Pederasty (To note that the Greek_pederasty is covered in the Philosophy_of_Greek_pederasty). Furthermore, the argument is already covered in Pederasty#Albania: there is no need for a main article there either.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Evidently notable per Edison and WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment In the first paragraph there are 5 references. Either it is not possible to see these references online, or there is nothing in them to show pederasty. Please show me ONE reference out of those five to convince me of the validity of these claims. In particular this reference proves that Haiduc, the article writer, and an indefinitely banned user of Misplaced Pages, has nothing to reference. Out of the 13 references, only one talks about gay sex in 1997 Albania, not pedearasty.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete pov fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep: There are several descriptions both from primary and secondary sources about this pattern of behaviort,y mbn. For example ] p. 187-196 (Male homosexuality in Ottoman Albania), gives specific examples about this. Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

CommentPlease note that the reference you are bringing is homosexuality, not pederasty. The article writer is a POV pushing with a unique obsession: pederasty, see . Haiduc brings only ONE reference and it is for homosexuality. The whole pederasty thing is a hoax and unsubstantiated. This is a clear example of WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FORK and WP:V sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 20:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I inform you that the specific book speaks about pederasty too:

"Plomer reports that Ali's son Veli, vizier of Morea (sw Greece emulated his father's appetities for money and for boys... any beautiful girls or boys" p. 193& p. 189.
A Geg marries at the age of 24...but not usually gives up 'boy' love (p.188).

So please, you should read the section before saying that this isn't about pederasty.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete The article has two problems. First, it represents a complete synthesis of ideas, for example the cite above by Alexikoua refers to homosexuality and not pederasty. The user who created and maintained this article had the same problem across all of his work; he would bend and misrepresent sources to make claims of other sexual activity (such as homosexuality or pedophilia) as pederasty, and so we have the second problem... We cannot trust the sources provided since, in nearly every case, where we CAN check the sources, they do not support the claims in these articles. For sources we cannot readily check, we cannot trust. All of them should be deleted, and if it is determined that the topic needs to be covered by an article (and that's a big "if"), then they should be created by scratch by an editor who isn't misrepresenting sources to do so. --Jayron32 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment:@Jayron32: If you read this part of the book (not only the title), like in p. 193 (Plomer reports that ali's son..." you will realize that it speaks about pederasty. Moreover, the source is wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so how is that pederasty and not pedophilia? Again, source says "so and so likes boys" but does not say that that is pederasty. To make the leap from the former statement to the latter claim that this represents pederasty requires a synthesis of ideas. Once you eliminate all cases where the source material does not explicitly use the term pederasty, or describe the practice thereof unambiguously, you have nothing. --Jayron32 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that while there have been pederasts in albanian history and there are certainly some albanian pederasts today, there's nothing particularly Albanian about these creeps. They're much like British, or US, or whatever pederasts. This is not a topic like Pederasty in Ancient Greece and this article, as written and conceived, mashes together a whole host of homosexual behavior from the morally acceptable (between consenting adults) to the borderline (adult and a 17-year-old) to the clearly morally reprehensible (basically raping 13-year old kids).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep, per Edison, evidently a part of the culture of the country and enough sourced. --Factuarius (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete The online references are quite vague: no doubt a person with a particular interest in boys could find like-minded people in any country, and those people may very well claim that pederasty is "openly practiced". Given the origin of this article, and the tone of the lead, I do not trust the interpretation of the paper references. The lead tenderly reports that "the older lover is called ashik..."; if that detail has some encyclopedic importance it can be mentioned in an appropriate article. However, there is no reliable scholarly study showing that "Albanian pederasty" is notably different from "English pederasty" or "Thai pederasty" etc., and this article serves only to unduly glorify an outlook that has a proven record of of being promoted via the Internet in general, and Misplaced Pages in particular. My guess is that the article was created because a source was found which included text attributed to a Geg Albanian: "The lover's feeling for the boy is pure as sunshine...". When a scientific study reaches that conclusion it can go in Pederasty. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
keep, just needs lots of editingMegistias (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete, salt, etc., per my reasoning in the other substantially similar AFDs. Unit Anode 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete per Bali, and apply liberal amounts of WP:SALT. Metric tons. JBsupreme (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep and re-write. High quality sources explicitly discussing this can be found . Article should be re-written along these lines. Athenean (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? You're citing a book that has two trivial mentions of the phrase as a "high quality source"? Unit Anode 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not two trivial mentions, it is half a page, and it is described in detail. The source is high quality, and lots more can be found if you just do a simple search on Google books. Enough at any rate, to establish the subjects notability. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's pretty trivial. There's only one mention of the phrase "Albanian pederasty" in the entire book, and it's within the context of "Greek pederasty." It's certainly enough to source it for the sub-section in the parent article, but not for a stand-alone. Unit Anode 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Worth mention that the most substantial source presented there is a book not about Albanian pederasty, but about Islamic homosexuality, which perhaps suggests that this topic could be mentioned there in addition to my proposed merge to pederasty. Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete - original research, undue weight, etc. Think of the children (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge without prejudice back to Pederasty. If we cut all the extensive and tedious quotations from poetry, we don't really have a viable article here that couldn't be dealt with in a couple of paragraphs in the main article. If someone later actually uses viable sources and writes a solid article of some length, then recreation would be fine by me, but as it is there's no justification for this. Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: it is highly disappointing to see the usual Greek nationalist crowd turning up here to keep this, mostly to spite the Albanians, and partly because Pederasty in Ancient Greece is always going to be with us. Guys, come on, you know better (and Athenean, you really know better). WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND again, I'm afraid. Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Apart from several western travelers that describe this practice, who are confirmed by modern research, Robert Elsie, a top expert on Albanian related topics ] makes a detailed 4-page entry for A.p. ] p. 202-205, simply saying that it was a a popular custom. It seems that there is enough information and notability about the topic.Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete POV pushing original research was heavily behind this article. It should be restarted from scratch if someone really feels it's necessary and can find good sources. Sχeptomaniac 23:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
delete no legitimate sources. — goethean ॐ 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete or merge. Poor quality sources, article still suffers from the initial author's naive over-reliance on primary sources - and the few modern secondary sources all seem to rely on the same very few and very unreliable remarks by a few 19th-century outside travellers. Not enough material here to make a solid case that pederasty in 19th-century Albania was any different in nature from that practiced elsewhere in Ottoman society, hence no need for a separate article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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.