Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia


 * 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   keep per references provided during the discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

While this work certainly existed and published articles, some of which have been cited or referred to on rare occasion, there is a lack of reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in any depth. It was a short-lived, pseudo-academic periodical with little impact, reach, or significance. Moreover, I am concerned that this article was substantially written by blocked pedophilia advocates, and was even edited by the journal's founder/editor. Dominic·t 10:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst there is asrioous lack or sources, and I agree that this does not establish notability. I cannot agree with you last statement only three banned edds have editited this page, out a a figure well in double figures.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge some content into article on frits bernard or pedophilia(i see the journal is referenced at that article, this may be enough). its probably notable that this journal was published, and i could find one reference to it. I dont see it being notable enough for an article, but probably needs some coverage somewhere.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's evidence of coverage;, , , , WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think those links that you have provided are evidence of the lack of coverage. Of them, only one is actually about the journal; the others are merely making incidental mentions of it or including it in a bibliography or footnote. The one link that actually discusses the journal itself is the last one, a book review. However, having a review included in a minor, pro-pedophilia book which was itself co-authored by one of the journal's editorial board members hardly seems like evidence of notability. Dominic·t 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Source one only includes snipets and it is difficult to see what degree of coverage it has recived from the source.
 * The second is a review, that only means that some one has sent it to some one to be revied, it does not imoply any notability it as to the book the review is in sadley I cannot view the preciding page so again have no idea of context.
 * Source three is a foot note it does however have more coverage then this One page 30, 120, 122, 123 (I think) and 128. So it would seem that this source does indead cnsider this magazine fairly notable (as an example of Pedo advocacy).
 * Source four seems to be more about Mr Sandfort then the mag.
 * Source five is by some one linked to this mag so cannot be used to establish notablty.
 * On balance I feel tjhat this (mainly source three) has gone a long way to establishing that within accademic circles this magazine has been used as an example.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, topic has been the subject of analysis in scholarly books , and journals   Abductive  (reasoning) 07:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Abductive. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 23 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.