Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoyChat


 * 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, strength of argument is ruling over this one. Yank sox 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

BoyChat

 * — (View AfD)

Verifiability and notability. Lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this site. - crz crztalk 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I'd consider the fact people have been jailed from this site, the FBI monitoring it, and PJ making a mention of it notability-making, however, no reliable sources. Withdrawn per below. Changing to Keep. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability and too few reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 05:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn, both conditions have changed. -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that this had been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself or that it meets any of the other criteria of WP:WEB. Providing links to the site itself is not the same as citing reliable sources. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete P4k 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added news paper article links to the article which show that journalists have been talking about BoyChat since 1998. With all the articles posted (4 or more at the time of this comment) this article easily meets WP:RS, there needs to be some integration to be truly verifiable but the shear number of media mentions allows the article to meet WP:V. Since WP:RS and WP:V are met via multiple real-world non-trivial publications which are secondary sources this article meets WP:WEB. The article still needs a lot of a work and seems to skirt around the issue that all the reliable sources say that BoyChat is chat for pedophiles. This article seems to avoid stating verifiable facts about the website. Then on a non-policy note I'd like to say that having an article on BoyChat on Wikipedia allows people to read about it without actually going there. Hopefully wikipedia can give people unbiased information (they are pedophiles) about BoyChat rather than users having to interpret their FAQ. In Summary please re-read the article, please view ALL of the references and external links, you'll the article passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEB. --Quirex 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That said perhaps this should be generalized into a freespirits, boywiki, boychat article or information about those sites can integrated here. --Quirex 06:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. With new references is now compatible with WP:N. ccscott 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability, verifiability, lack of reliable independent sources and WP:WEB. Most of the "references and external links" relate to or belong to the site itself, and much of the information in the article is sourced directly from the site. Numerous other web forums, even ones that have made the news, have failed these parameters and been deleted in the past. The "external links" section generally fails neutral point of view. Orderinchaos78 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Please go through the news references and links (there are more than 4 of them and tell me why each fails. When you say generally you are not dealing fairly with the links that pass WP:RS. There are many news mentions and you can't ignore them. --Quirex 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh c'mon, quirex. Biggest claim to fame is a brief mention in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story? - crz crztalk 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The williamette Week is directly about them, the st louis dispatch article you have to pay for, the CNSNEWS article is about them, the xtra article is about freespirits, the toronto sun article is about them, freespirits, epifora and verizon. They have multiple media references and multiple secondary sources about just them. Then there is the christian news one which is about them but less reliable. This isn't just one. You can't ignore the other references. --Quirex 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per notability, verifiability, reliable independent sources and WP:WEB. Jillium 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedian is a member of BoyChat and associated FreeSpirits websites. XavierVE 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve citations. Notable due to Net Neutrality/Free Speech implications.  When no longer notable, MERGE with Pedophile Activism. User:dfpc 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA - crz crztalk 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm newly registered, I forgot the timestamp. I've since added it. User:dfpc 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC).  All my previous Wikipedia edits were ages ago and without a registered user account.
 * Delete The article itself was created by BoyChat members in order to try to give themselves some sense of legitimacy. Little about the article is encyclopedic. This article falls into the category of non-notability, especially considering the origins of why the article was created and the open calls on BoyChat itself for the article to be edited against criticism by their members. Just another case study in how pedophiles try to subvert Wikipedia and it's "encyclopedic" status in order to promote themselves via mass campaigns of directed editing. XavierVE 10:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This was sorta my idea as well. Is there any proof for this? - crz crztalk 11:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple threads on their message board, including the original thread started by Clayboy where he asks for the communities help in editing the article regarding the community itself. Now there is a thread on their forum complaining about this deletion attempt. XavierVE 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA - BLueRibbon 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. On the one hand, the article has been sourced. I mean, realistically, granted that BoyChat is just another internet forum and and a small fringe one at that, the nature of the board is such that it's not surprising that it would attract a small amount of notice, if only for the shock value. There's more citation here than for a lot of other small fringe entities that have articles, I guess. On the other hand... it is true that the article was created by BoyChat members to promote BoyChat. That also is why the net has been combed so thoroughly to provide references. That in itself is not reason for deletion, though. The article is hardly a paean to BoyChat, after all. But... we know that Wikipedia is a target for many types of people to promote their fringe ideologies. Simply getting an article in, even if it's not especially positive, is a "win" for these fringe ideologists, conferring a certain level of legitimacy. My experience with what I'll call the sex-with-children-normalization ideology is that this is no exception, and indeed exponents of this ideology have shown considerable determination to get this ideology certified by inclusion in the Wikipedia in various ways. This has been a problem, and the Wikipedia has been criticized with some cause as "Wikipedophilia" in the past, which is not a good thing, and could become a Very Bad Thing if a lid is not kept on it. Per WP:IAR commentors are permitted to transcend policy if doing so to prevent the Wikipedia from being hijacked for use in a way that is detrimental to the overall long-term public perception of the Wikipedia (and per WP:NOT EVIL, to prevent the Wikipedia from being hijacked to promote any evil end regardless of direct harm to the project). Is this such a case? I don't know. But I for one don't have a problem with requiring a higher standard of notability for inclusion than I would for, er, other subjects. (FWIW GirlChat was deleted earlier this year.) Herostratus 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that is pretty obvious that pedos have combined forces to prove this article (they say so on the talk page) and topic meets WP:RS and WP:V but I don't appreciate the accusation that anyone arguing for this article or adding references to this article must be a pedo. The fact is they have already been given "legitimacy" by the news media and various govt research groups. I'm just annoyed that you're suggesting this rather than putting your foot down and pointing out that a majority of WP:NPOV edits on behalf of pedos are not WP:NPOV and only represent a minority opinion. If you want to be a good admin you should go through and apply WP:NPOV to the article and the edits which people suggest they revert for WP:NPOV. The first thing to be done is make sure all the pedo language is inline with the wikipedia pedo watch group that Herostratus is part of. Then second to make sure and watch the article when it gets edited that language isn't weakened and WP:NPOV isn't abused to promote a fringe minority opinion. This is not a case of pro and anti-abortion this is a case of a case of FRINGE opinion, this means labels like pedophile will stick because all but the very fringe agree. Please don't use weasel non-policies, please apply the real policies of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the 3 cornerstones of wikipedia. --Quirex 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't at all mean to leave the impression that anyone working on sourcing the article or arguing for its retention is anything, sorry! if I did. (I would differentiate between pedophile, a person with an affliction, and sex-with-children normalization advocate, an ideologue. The two populations overlap no doubt but each group contains many members not in the other.) As to the rest, I'm not sure exactly sure what you're on about... editors are free to comment or vote as they please according to the wisdom given them, of course. And I edit plenty of related articles as a member of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and I am watching this one but not actively editing it at this time. Herostratus 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The very thing that makes BoyChat notable to the general public is the attempts to shut it down. But for the Network Neutrality implications it could merged into Pedophile activism.  Ironically, XavierVE and his group Perverted-Justice are responsible for the recent and ongoing shutdown actions.  As I said above, KEEP as long as it is notable then MERGE with PA. Dfpc 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per XavierVE and others. --Gabi S. 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Quirex and others. It is not unexpected that even a small activist group gets minor mentions; but, included citations do not convince me that notability criteria are met. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Though there are citations, they do not meet the standards of WP:Verify.  For example, the claimed Slashdot "article" is a letter from an anonymous reader.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT EVIL, with thanks to Herostratus for pointing it out. I realize it's an essay and not policy, but it concisely describes why this article doesn't need to be on Wikipedia.  Powers T 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been improved, due to the threat of deletion. The article now contains many verifiable cited sources. XavierVE, Gabi S and LtPowers appear to be more concerned about the topic than the relevant guidelines regarding articles on Wikipedia. BLueRibbon 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA - crz crztalk 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BLueribbon is a member of BoyChat, the subject of the article itself. XavierVE 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's obvious, but why is it more relevant than the fact that you post here when you are the self-admitted "leader" of the largest group which opposes BoyChat? Why is it more biased than you being a major contributor to discussion regarding Wikipedia's Perverted Justice article, your company? Anyway, this is not a pissing contest, but you're being rather hypocrtical. ~ BLueRibbon 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've edited the PeeJ article twice since the end of March, both edits were shown to be keeping in good faith in regards to the article itself. As for why it's relevant that you're a member of the group, this is a AfD motion. Of course a member of an organization profiled by Wikipedia would vote to keep the article itself in Wikipedia. Just as you alleged that I'm an SPA, I'm simply pointing out that your vote isn't NPOV and keeping in the spirit of Wikipedia. XavierVE 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather speak for myself, in reply to your claim that I'm more concerned about the topic than the relevant guidelines regarding articles on Wikipedia. I think that the site is not notable enough, despite the references. The given references are few and not from sources that I trust (for example, if there was a big article in the Wall Street Journal I would react differently). This is also true for many other web sites that have articles on Wikipedia, and they should also be deleted, in my opinion. If I had time, I would list them all (yes, I am a bit of a deletionist). On the other hand, many such sites (including BoyChat) deserve some mentioning in a relevant "parent" article, and the main entry can be a redirect to that article. So just Delete and go on. --Gabi S. 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone who has the information handy could add a reference entry for Kurt Eichenwald's piece in the New York Times. --Foo of boychat 11:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yer darn right I'm concerned about the topic. This forum only gained the references it did because the subject of the forum is so reprehensible.  Wikipedia's purpose is to provide a service to its readers.  I believe this article provides a disservice to its readers.  We don't need it here.  Powers T 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The right for an article to exist is to be judged by its notability alone. Wikipedia is not censored, and will not refrain from covering topics people find "reprehensible" or immoral. If BoyChat is verifiably notable (which I'm not saying it is or is not), the article should live. All this moral outrage has no place in an AfD. (Disclosure of bias; I am an occasional BoyChat poster) Clayboy 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete because the Wikipedia is not censored section explicitly says that articles may include objectionable text only if they do not violate the law of the U.S. state of Florida. Having the BoyChat article on Wikipedia can be seen as a form of advertising its services (for instance, it becomes available on many search engines), and I'm pretty sure that the law of the U.S. state of Florida has some clause prohibiting advertising of such services. This is in addition to the not-notable-enough claim that I made above. --Gabi S. 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is silly. It would not be illegal to host BoyChat in Florida, so why would "advertising" it be? I'm sorry, but this article is going to get deleted as soon as the AfD period ends, so there is no need to come up with policy loopholes and weak conjecture about laws you are pretty sure exist. Clayboy 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BoyChat is not illegal. The FBI have been monitoring it for years and it still exists. BLueRibbon 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen no third-party sources stating that the FBI monitors BoyChat. As well, a quick check of BoyChat's DNS shows that it is currently having to flee to Russia due to it's content being kicked off of Canadian, Swedish and American webhosts. If it were not illegal to host BoyChat in a state like Florida, why is the site currently being hosted in Russia? XavierVE 12:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's being hosted in Russia because US/Canadian/Swedish hosts are more likely to be bullied by vigilante groups. Perverted Justice threatened previous ISPs (Verizon/MCI) with negative publicity and you've used tactics which have been described as harassment and spam, even by non-paedosexuals. (read the e-mail responses posted at your forum) ~ BLueRibbon 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: monitoring, good point. Re: not illegal:  With the exception of certain regulated industries, most businesses are free to do business with who they want to.  Many businesses do not want to associate even marginally with pedophile-related, pedophile-run web sites, either out of personal moral conviction or because they fear for their business's reputation should their client list become public knowledge.  At least one host in the United States took on BoyChat but later removed for reasons the leaders of BoyChat have not announced or do not know.  The removal came after pressure from third parties who claim similar goals to Xavier's group.  I'm not saying Xavier's group had any hand in this disconnection, but I am saying Xavier's actions with MCI/Verizon inspired the third-party pressure on this American hosting service. Dfpc 13:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: not illegal: As of 2003, the FBI said BoyChat was "totally legal" [ news article from 2003 quoting FBI spokesman Barry Maddox ]. Dfpc 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "The right for an article to exist is to be judged by its notability alone." Um, no.  "George Bush's homosexual relationship with Kim Jong-Il" is a notable topic, but it's completely unverifiable and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia.  "The complete shooting script of Superman Returns" is notable and verifiable but still inappropriate for Wikipedia.  This article may be notable (although it's certainly debatable), and it may be verifiable, and it's certainly not a copyright violation, but it's still inappropriate for Wikipedia because it does a disservice to Wikipedia's readers.  It legitimizes a topic that rightfully belongs on the fringes of decent society (if even there); to claim it meets notability guidelines because of multiple third-party sources is to give its controversial nature too much influence over its notability.  Powers T 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point but I think you picked a bad example with the movie script. The circumstances which might make it notable enough to be in Wikipedia, for example, if a copy marked up by the director sold at auction for a record price, or if it were in a noteworthy court case, would IMHO make it worthy of an entry here.  Perhaps a better example would be a movie script with no notability outside of the movie industry or fan clubs.  But IMHO that wouldn't meet the notability requirement so we are back to square one:  looking for a notable, verifiable event that does not belong in Wikipedia. Remember, since October, BoyChat/Free Spirits is notable for reasons outside of pedophilia, namely, attempted suppression of legal speech online and Net Neutrality.  Such suppression is NOT a fringe issue.  Even within the pedophilia arena, BoyChat has some minor notability/notoriety in scholarly and legal circles.  Whether that rises to a "general interest" level common in Wikipedia is a matter for continued discussion. Dfpc 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My intention with the example was simply to show that notability and verifiability, while necessary conditions, were not sufficient conditions for inclusion. We have many other criteria that also need to be met.  If "BoyChat/Free Spirits is notable for ... attempted suppression of legal speech online and Net Neutrality", then the article needs to be about that suppression; BoyChat is hardly the only service affected by those attempts.  Powers T 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - We are 3 days into the AfD discussion. Take a look at the current content. Now, why Delete or Keep the article? What Would Change Your Mind?  To those who propose deletion:  What specific items need to change?  More/better citations?  More notability/notoriety?  Is the topic completely unsalvageable?  Other?  To those who propose keeping:  How do you respond?  Whether this deletion goes through or not, these answers will prove useful should there be another call for deletion, or should the article be deleted and it or a similar article be created a year or two from now.  I do hope the administrators keep this discussion. Dfpc 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I favor KEEP or MERGE with Pedophile Activism and/or Net Neutrality. So far, I've seen calls for verifyability, notability, and WP:WEB.  The article is vastly improved on both counts since its first version, but can always use more improvement.  As long as the Net Neutrality factor exists, the notability standard is met and the WP:WEB is less of a factor.  After that dies down, merging may be in order.  In an article on a topic like this, NPOV is a risk with every edit, but the community will take care of this.  I've also seen a few comments that this article violates WP:NO_EVIL.  In part, this can be addressed by expanding it to Free Spirits and including material about how Law Enforcement and others use Free Spirits as an example in training and policy materials.  I started this process by adding a "BoyChat and Free Spirits citations in the press, academia, and policy-making" section.  I think Xavier might have a few useful things to add to that section.  As for GirlChat, at the time, neither it nor BoyChat met the notability criteria.  I missed the GirlChat content, but I hope some of it was salvaged for related topics. Dfpc 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to the NOT EVIL concerns I mention above, the article also does not in any way assert the notability of its subject. It's not enough to simply cite third-party references; an explanation of why this topic is notable is necessary.  Reading this article, my biggest question is "So what?  Why is this important enough for an encyclopedia article?"  Powers T 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question for long-time Wikipedians: What is the proper way to start an article for the now-mostly-online phenomenon of "Pedophile Peer Support" as distinct from "Pedophile Activism" or "Pedophile Peer Therapy."  This article encompasses the non-activism aspects of NAMbLA, such as their prisoner-letter-writing program, pure support online resources such as Christian Boylove Forum, and real-world and online-world ways and means that pedophiles use to support each other.  In this context I include ephebophiles in countries where they are not socially tolerated, which is most of the world.  Such an article would encompass BoyChat's and GirlChat's peer-support roles, but would not necessarily encompass their place in the Net Neutrality debate, the use of BoyChat as a law-enforcement or pedophile-awareness educational tool, or any other role.  For the most part, BoyChat could be merged into this topic. Dfpc 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dfpc is a long-time member of BoyChat, the subject of the Wikipedia article in question. XavierVE 12:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * True enough. However, that does mean I do not try to look at things objectively.  On the Talk page you mentioned you planned to enrich this article if it passes the deletion vote.  Assuming the fact you are adding are verifiable from public sources and in keeping with Wikipedia content policies, they should improve the article overall.  Go ahead and add a few now and give those here a chance to see what this article can become.  Dfpc 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Having waded through most of the things that looked like news articles from reliable sources (one had technical difficulties), I didn't find that the forum was the primary subject of those articles. Without being the primary subject of independent coverage, I don't believe that it meets WP:WEB.  GRBerry 05:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom ("Lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this site.") Note: I will not respond to anyone regarding my 2cents here. Bye! ^_^ -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 11:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to pedophilia or nambla (read the article to see why these are appropriate redirects. First sentence is, "BoyChat, operated by Free Spirits, is an Internet forum for individuals who are attracted to underage boys." Anomo 22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as it is kept objective, such an article's deletion would not look too good alongside the encyclopedia's coverage of far more banal and irrelevent subjects. In fact, it would represent plain hostility against a group, because of their position in society. --Jim Burton 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another WP:SPA (just for the record). --Gabi S. 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying Jim Burton is a single-purpose account? I checked his Contribs history, he's been around since September '06.  True, he's focused on pedophile issues, with less than a handful of edits on other subjects, but if he is an SPA it's pedophilia-related material in general not BoyChat in particular.  It could just be that Mr. Burton has a strong interest in editing this material.  His page calls himself "Neutrality Editor on Wikipedia."  Calling an established account a "SPA" without explaining why hurts ones credibility. Dfpc 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You just explained it clearly :-) --Gabi S. 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus not reached, article is new and deserves a chance Scanning through the above it looks like there is a strong majory, somewhere in the 60-80% range, who favor deletion.  Some of the votes both ways appear to be okay with some form of merge or redirect.  However, there are enough Keep's around who haven't agreed to a merge or deletion that it's fair to say there is no consensus.  My personal recommendation:  keep the article for a few months, if necessary revisit the keep/delete/merge/redirect issue and refer back to this archived discussion in the next go-around, if there is one.  It is likely that over the next few months, the issues that prompted this AfD will change.  Notably, pardon the pun, BoyChat's relatively low notability outside its own community, particularly with respect to Net Neutrality is likely to either go up if the case gains publicity or down if it fades into the history books, making it either clearly notable or not notable.  The other reasons for notability, such as use in law-enforcement training, are also relatively low but are not likely to change quickly.  The issues with Neutral Point of View and Verifiability are VERY likey to be improved given a few months' time.  To quote from Articles for Deletion: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape." Dfpc 03:05, 18 December 2006 (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.