Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pederastic couples in Japan


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pederastic couples in Japan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Synthesis by banned user pushing a POV. See Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination). Practically identical to that article in scope and structure, except limited to Japan. Pcap ping  14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Delete personal essay that distorts sources and stretches the definition of "pedarastic couple" to include all sorts of things that don't belong, in an apparent effort to make pedophilia appear more acceptable.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the way I put it in the AFD for the other, very similar article was, "Delete, salt, lock, and throw away the key. Full of original research and is a blatant POV fork." The same applies here. Unit  Anode  15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Trim to include only well-sourced examples, then merge to the Historical pederastic relationships article. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Recommending a "trim and merge" to an article that is going to be deleted is a bit irresponsible. Unit  Anode  15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I think to be the best course of action, in the hope the other article is not deleted. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as with the parent article Historical pederastic relationships, however in this case I can't see where Japan deserves a special article all to itself. Should a new article be needed on any of these topics, I would feel better if a new, sanitized, neutral version were started from scratch rather than this complete and utter mess.  However, this specific article is likely uneeded in any event, dealing with a specific country at this level of detail doesn't make much sense.  -- Jayron  32  19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - for the same reasons as Historical pederastic relationships. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * E.g.: It's interesting how "Tsunashige was loved by Ujiyasu" is translated into "they had a pederastic relationship", when Hōjō Tsunashige (北条 綱成) was the stepson of Hōjō Ujiyasu's (北条 氏康) brother Tamemasa (北条 為昌), and neither of their biographies mentions a pederastic relationship. There seems to be a fair bit of speculation here. Pcap ping  03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no reliable source showing that pederasty in Japan is notably different from similar sexual exploitation that occurs in every nation. The attempt to pad the article with lists of alleged pederastic couples is unwelcome WP:OR. Whether intended or not, the lists can be interpreted as an attempt to titillate susceptible readers, and may also serve to promote the idea that pederasty is a great idea due to its claimed noble history. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See also: Articles for deletion/Albanian pederasty (2nd nomination). Pcap ping  03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as with Historical pederastic relationships. With the added benefit of original research! Viridae Talk 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Supreme delete. Seriously now.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 05:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - for reasons given in the Historical... AfD. I really hope there isn't a whole slew of Pederastic couples in... shit articles that we have to wade through now. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I am afraid not...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - inaccurate, original research and so on. Think of the children (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over if someone wants to do so. I don't believe the banned editor's contributions can be trusted to be an accurate representation of sources. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agenda-based original research/synthesis, fails WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability, may be worth having a sentence or two at pederasty. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The creator of this article has a history of misrepresenting sources and he has used Wikipedia as a propaganda tool for too long. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:49, 7 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.