Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pederasty in ancient Greece


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i SPEAK!! 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pederasty in ancient Greece

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

From a quick glance, this article may appear well referenced; 40 odd inline citations for an article around 20kb long doesn't sound too bad. However, the references do not stand up to scrutiny. There is a heavy reliance on ancient sources in the article, which gives the impression that this is an essay rather than an article in an encyclopaedia. There is a lot of original research disguised by the use of these sources as demonstrated here. In at least one example, it isn't just a misuse of the ancient sources, but of the modern ones too. Of the nine times I've searched out the sources to read what they say, every time I've found that they've been misrepresented. I do not have access to all the sources listed in the article, but given the high hit rate, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot more wrong with the article. This is even after culled over 20kb from the article in February. In light of this, I suggest that the article is deleted because it's a controversial subject and contrains a lot of original research, and misrepresentation of sources. The subject could be dealt with in the main pederasty article, but this appears to be a content fork, carefully disguised with citations. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. In my opinion this is a very notable subject that merits an article on its own. The current article may have problems, but they can be dealt with through the usual Wikipedia process and don't require deletion. --Lambiam 21:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and appropriately tag. Yes, the article does have problems, but nothing that cannot be fixed. Also, the article certainly is notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are too many issues with what is present. In theory, I would be ok with an article on the subject as there do seem to be sources on it, however until someone with the sources chooses to write the article, we shouldn't have one. As I have demonstrated on the talk page, the bogus OR is going to be almost inseperable from the genuine info. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to remove all the OR and leave a stub, so other people can look back in the history to find which sources can be used for a decent article, than delete the page? Olaf Davis (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so; I do not have access to all the sources and 9 out of 9 I checked, the source had been misrepresented. In the absense of a reason to assume the rest is correct, it would all have to go. Information such as bibliography for anyone who wishes to recreate the article or know more about the subject can be integrated into the main article on pederasty. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * keep. This is a notable topic, and AFD is not cleanup. In addition, the nominator seems unfamiliar with the topic; much of what he deleted is correct info, though not cited to secondary sources. If the nominator were familiar with the topic, s/he would have been able to recognize that some of what he's deleted is uncontroversial. Indeed, anyone with even a casual interest in this topic should have known that Socrates advocated a chaste form of the erastes--eromenos relationship. Tagging would have been better than wholesale deletion in this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the statement at the top of this discussion, you'll see that I do not assert that the topic is not notable – William Percy's Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece is enough to demonstrate that it is – however the article as it is now is not sustainable. As I have demonstrated in the evidence presented on the talk page, the sources were deliberately misrepresented, and this problem likely affects the whole article. If every suspect piece of information was removed, you'd be left with a one line stub, which may as well not exist as it's covered in the main article on pederasty. Hence I suggest the article should be deleted, unless you can provide sources? As you appear to be very familiar with the subject, please feel free to step up and clean out the dross and add sources; I got bored of clearing out the original research and deliberate misuse of sources after a couple of hours in which there was not a single indication that the article was salvageable. Deleting the article does not mean there will never be an article on the subject, it means that one should not be created until it is adequately sourced. That was the outcome of Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination), an article mostly edited by the same user, who has since been banned. Nev1 (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable enough that a book (Carola Reinsberg: Ehe, Hetärentum und Knabenliebe im antiken Griechenland. C.H. Beck Verlag, München 1989, ISBN 3-406-33911-5) published by a well regarded publisher was written in part about the topic. Hekerui (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - the issue of problems with/misrepresentation of sources means the page and issues must be fixed - not deleted. Controversy, original research and misrepresentation of sources are irrelevant for purposes of establishing whether it passes the guidelines on notability, which this article clearly does.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable subject. Tangurena (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic. Needing cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I was tempted to close this one as a snow keep, but it would seem more reasonable to let it go the full time, on the unlikely chance that someone could find a valid argument for deletion. I agree that a more exact analysis oft he material should be made, perhaps more clearly associating   the classical material with secondary material about them. But that an article should be improved is not reason for deletion.    DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One could easily make a case that this article should be merged with Homosexuality in ancient Greece; since pederasty is by far the best documented form of ancient Greek homosexual behavior (and might in fact be the best documented sexual behavior in general from that period), most of that article should deal with pederasty. I wouldn't be in favor of this, because there's enough information about pederasty to split it off as a sub-article, but it is an argument that could be made. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's not forget that despite this discussion's venue, AFDs often have outcomes beyond a straightforward keep or delete. As has been demonstrated, the article contained deliberate misinformation, and realistically it probably still does. Therefore it needs a thorough cleanup; the question is who will take on that task? I do not have the resources to do it properly myself, and the person who originally wrote the article is now banned. Despite several people voting, no one has put their hand up to improve the article. Do the voters here really find it satisfactory to have this article spreading half-truths? Responsibility is an unusual concept on Wikipedia, but without someone willing and able to rescue the article, it seems ridiculous to protect it. In the absence of that, presenting an article which almost certainly contains deliberate misinformation is the least preferable outcome of this discussion. We're not talking about your average crappy article – otherwise 90% of Wikipedia would be a candidate for deletion; what we have here is an article someone has written to deliberately misrepresent the sources. Leaving this lying around in the hope someone will step up will do no good; arguably, knowingly providing a platform for misinformation is doing harm. Has no one considered the possibility of turning this page into a redirect? Or merging it into the main pederasty article? So far the keep votes have been pretty simplistic in response to a complicated issue. Yes, the subject is notable, but I have not suggested that there should never be an article on this, just that until someone can create some decent material that we know is not intentionally incorrect that it should be no more than a redirect; which is a de facto deletion. Nev1 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that there were propagandist motives behind much of the writing by a banned editor but this is a notable topic and redirect isn't the way to go. It does contain some very strange things - such as the section on the religious aspect of pederasty, which is very poorly referenced and almost incoherent - and there is a good argument for pruning the article back to a stub to encourage a thorough rewrite, but it shouldn't be deleted, redirected or merged. Merging it with Homosexuality in ancient Greece would be to confuse homosexuality with pederasty. Merging it with Pederasty would be to downplay the special significance of pederasty in ancient Greece. Amphitryoniades (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and prune extensively according to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.    Of course, this is AfD, not Article-Cleanup, so the pruning will have to be done at the article and its talk page. However it is useful to have context for keeping the article - it is the topic that is notable, not the content. The page is overrun with unsourced speculation and idealized interpretations and misinterpretations of ancient sources.   All unsourced or questionably-sourced information should  be removed, even if that leaves a very short page.  Short and verified is a good start for a reboot that can become a strong article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:06, 21 March 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.