Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles

List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles
Yet another extraneous list. Important entries on this list are mentioned as part of the childlove movement and pedophilia articles. +sj + 12:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) * keep, I don't like child rapists' attempts to push their pov on here, but this is okay as long as it can be verified. Dunc|&#9786; 17:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. btw, Sj, don't forget to put a vfd tag on the page you're nominating for deletion. Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]] 13:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pedophilia has long been an important social issue, if only for the witchhunts of recent years. Similar to List_of_famous_gay%2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people. Wyllium 14:44, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. No question that the underlying subject is notable, the problem is whether the list page is useful. I think not (see +sj above), but maybe someone can persuade me that there might be a reason for maintaining a list of self-identified pederasts. &#8212; Bill 16:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Their taking responsibilty for their behaviour is a good thing! Fire Star 17:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Change to support Dpbsmith's position below. Dunc|&#9786; 12:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lists are only rarely encyclopedic. This one isn't. --Improv 17:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mixed feelings about this one, but I think this will open a can of worms about how we define the terms involved. Gamaliel 20:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are lots of lists in the Wikipedia, it seems to be an okay thing. - Lifefeed 20:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is bizarre, and there is no connection or analogy between pedophilia, pederasty (which is rape, after all), and homosexuality. Pretty shocking simile.  Furthermore, what use is it to have a list of pedophiles?  What is the context?  How is this serving information?  Delete for being non-encyclopedic, unsearchable, unverifiable, and unuseful. Geogre 21:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, for legal purposes, In many (most?) juristictions, promotion of pedophilia is a prosecutable crime, this list does nothing more than promote pederasts and pedophiles. Frankly, some of the other associated pages are close to the borderline.  This one is way over. It is verifiable, actually, as long as the criteria is either a judicial conviction or a statement admitting it. -Vina 22:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if verifiable, and the entries have at least a small notability. Although I like no more than the next guy, I have to stick to my guns. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  22:44, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * delete agree that lists are rarely encyclopedic and this one is not at all. Get-back-world-respect 23:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that all lists should be turned into categories instead. However, if that's not possible, keep as it's no better or worse than any other list on here. Shane King 23:59, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless: a) contributors to the article are willing to form a committee devoted to providing a specific print-media reference for each item (book or magazine with specific page reference) and the actual quotation, in which the person "self-identifies" in that person's own preferred language and terminology, and b) a second committee of neutral third parties people is willing to take on the work of verifing each one. The material should be kept out of the main namespace until this work is completed and, even outside the main namespace, should have a conspicuous banner explaining that it is work in progress and that the material in it has not been verified. In the final article, each person listed should be accompanied by that "self-identifying" quotation and the verified citation. Oh, and protect the page after the work is complete. Yep, it's a high bar, but it's what I think is appropriate. This is one case where we have to give more than lip-service to verification: we have to be sure everything in the article is actually verified. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: This list is quite useful. --Zanthalon, 00:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's useful, I hesitate to ask what you're using it for. --Improv 15:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I find Dpbsmith's position convincing. Change my vote to delete. Fire Star 03:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is non-verifiable. Mandel 08:43, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-verifiable, and as with all similar lists, inevitably outdated the second the original editor loses interest. Jayjg 16:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: troll/vandal magnet, perpetually out of date, not worth the tremendous maintenance effort it would demand. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the usefulness. JamesMLane 05:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is asking for trouble in that it is potentially libellous and would open up the possibility of people nominating people they dislike to the list. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete I simply do not see the point of this page, and though that in itself should not be grounds for deletion, in this case the subject matter is potentially very controversial. While I would agree with Dpbsmith's proposal, I feel it's unworkable. cevonia 12:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)