Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Greek Love


 * 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 speedy delete. G12 copyright violation and WP:SNOW looks like no chance of notability being shown. SpinningSpark 23:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

International Journal of Greek Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This very-short-lived academic (?) journal about pederasty/pedophilia fails WP:GNG. Note that it published only 2 issues 53 years ago.

GNG requires "[1.] significant coverage in [2.] reliable sources that are [3.] independent of the subject". ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". "[M]ultiple sources are generally expected."

Examining the sources in the article, we find that three of the references are to the journal itself, and the external link is to a personal website that contains the journal's content. The two links in the infobox are just to library catalogs, which do not confer notability. The first and fourth refs are trivial mentions (note that the versions in the article are dead links).

Okay, let's look for new sources. Regular Google turns up some personal website; "BoyWiki" (which is exactly what you suspect); Google Books, Amazon, and WorldCat listings for the publication itself; the external link from before; a small specialist wiki; and a Routledge book edited by Vern Bullough. This book entry may be the best source; but its material is mainly about eulogizing (really) the journal's sex offender editor Walter Breen, and the journal is secondary. We do not have multiple sources; all the other search types turn up trivial mentions or (very few) citations; the only one that maybe looks promising turns out to be published by Lulu Press, a self-publisher.

This article was created by a user who mostly edited in pedophilia articles and is now banned. It links to the site "exitinterview.biz" four times; this is a site that is on the subject of "how can people of different generations interact with each other in a way that benefits both....I will focus on the interrelationships of boys and men." An examination of the rest of that page and the "research" he has collected here makes clear that this is a pedophilia advocacy site. The main point however is that the journal does not meet GNG.

This AfD is very detailed because I originally prodded the article, but this was removed by an editor who said it is "notable for its place in the MZB and Breen history". I don't see how this helps it meet GNG. Not everything a notable person works on is itself notable. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The earlier now deleted page was deleted for being a copy and paste from a licence-incompatible wiki, see Suspected copyright violations/2012-05-24. This page is two of the same paragraphs, looking at the deleted revisions.  The first paragraph of Pedophile press is also the same previously deleted licence-incompatible content; and I suspect that the rest is as well, as it seems that the banned user could not write in the first place anyway.  Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Other already deleted articles by that user turn out to be copy and pastes, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism of promotional blurb in lieu of writing is bad. Copyright problems are also bad.  All of that where the source promotional blurb is "BoyWiki" is wholly unacceptable.  I am in favour of deleting both this and pedophile press.  This is not writing; and I think that we can very much do without these two entire edit histories.  Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will investigate and probably nominate that shortly. -Crossroads- (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That other article is now nominated here. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this mess per the thoroughly researched nomination – I searched for additional sources but couldn't find any. Haukur (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of previously-deleted material (and even if that didn't apply, the nomination makes a good case for deletion anyway). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (WP:SNOW maybe) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I can hardly believe that an academic journal that only had two issues (and apparently little circulation) is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2019 (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.