Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Man/Boy Love Association


 * 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 close per WP:SNOW. Pascal.Tesson 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

North American Man/Boy Love Association
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable pedophilia promotion page. We dont do that, any useful info (ie the fact of the organisation's existence) is already covered at Pro-pedophile activism, SqueakBox 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Scorch with primordial fire, per nominator. El_C 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I appreciate SqueakBox's efforts in clearing up material promoting a fringe element, NAMBLA is very notable, and has been the subject of numerous articles and criminal investigations. The article is fully sourced and rather long, so it would not be a good target for merging.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as a highly notable and controversial organization. What is the policy that this supposedly violates? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as stated, notability, SqueakBox 19:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be joking, in other words, incredibly obvious keep - while I am at work and will not search for NAMBLA references here, the organization clearly meets any possible standard of inclusion. If you believe that the content is inappropriately POV then feel free to thrash it out on the talk page. Otto4711 19:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment some people obviously disagree with you, SqueakBox 19:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy and Strong Keep as abhorrent as this topic is to me, it's a notable historical organization and we should document it. If we have articles on Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer.  We can cover a peophile organization encyclopedically, and as much as it pains me to say it, we should.  They exist - we should document that.  Claims that this organization are not notable cannot possibly be good-faith - NAMBLA is imfamous.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The organization itself is the subject of coverage by numerous third-party sources therefore it meets WP:ORG. Any of the other concerns amount to censorship. It is of zero concern to Wikipedia itself what this organization exists to do. If you are concerned about the content of the page, the solution is on the talk page, not AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this is ridiculous. Just because you don't like an organization doesn't mean you try to get it deleted.  This is poor judgment on your part, User:SqueakBox.  --David Shankbone 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Clearly notable by the definition at WP:N due to the volume of links to coverage about the organisation.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a grounds for deletion. JulesH 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Just becuase you dislike the orginization doesn't mean it's not notable. It is clearly notable. i  (said)  (did) 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong, obvious keep One look at the references at the end of the article is enough to establish WP:Notability, before we even start to talk about the 1300 Google News hits. The article does need monitoring for POV of course, but the same is true of any article on a controversial subject - it's not a reason for deletion. If you dislike the subject matter, remember Wikipedia is not censored. Is it WP:SNOWing yet? Iain99 19:42, 31 July 2007 (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.