Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film


 * 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 – this is, no doubt, a highly controversial article - and this closure, no doubt, highly controversial as a result. Many users have put forward many arguments, some with more basis than others, and so I wouldn't feel secure closing this as a "No Consensus". First off, the numbers: I've tried very hard not to tot up a tally of Keep v. Delete !votes, and I'm quite proud not to have; however, just for the record - I get the general feeling that it's neck and neck.

However, having scrutinised the debate, the comments and the !votes, I have come to the conclusion that the Wikipedians who have pushed for "Delete" have presented the more thorough argument: not only have they put forward several key policy points - the article is Original Research, it's a Content Fork, it doesn't adhere to a NPOV - they also make more sense: this does read like a college essay that somebody has transferred to Wikipedia; and, I must admit it is a little creepy. As a result of the overall more impressive, influential and more sensible argument put forward by those !voting "Delete", I'm deleting this article as a result of what I interpret to be the Consensus established and expressed in this debate. Anthøny 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

First off, this article is filled with listcruft. Second, I don't think this is a discriminate and notable encyclopedic topic. Every type of human relationship possible has been exhibited in film and literature, and a list compiling examples for each one is unnecessary, and may give undue weight to the importance of that relationship in fiction. What's next? Mothers and daughters in film? Friendship in films? What's with the self-referential material that comprises the introduction? The bottom line is: this article is a POV fork, WP:SYN original research intended  to prove positive the unerring importance of "intimate relationships" between men and boys. Disturbing, to say the least. Any factually accurate citations and conclusions it might possibly include are better discussed under the general friendship article. Why is it so important that it be between men and male children? General subject matter aside, why only positive relationships? VanTucky (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This definitely reads like an essay, but I don't agree with the listcruft assessment. I think maybe, if someone could go through this with a fine-toothed comb you might be able to prune a good article out of it.  Right now, though, it smacks of a well-sourced college essay that someone added to Wikipedia.  --Haemo 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

CONSENSUS All of this is fine, except I fail to see relevance. Again, I think we all can easily see how each other feels about the article, and no amount of further discussion is going to change anyone's mind about it. If there is no hope to learn, pursued or change your mind, then it isn't a discussion, it is just an arguement. Again, I feel a consensus has been reached and a small minority of very vocal individuals disagree, and any further debate will not produce a different outcome. Pharmboy 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV OR etc. Also, this article would encourage a Negative friendships between men and boys in literature and film. Wouldn't that be fun! ~ JohnnyMrNinja  00:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; disturbingly well-sourced but still indiscriminate and highly POV list which risks both violating WP:BEANS and inspiring press accounts such as this. Heather 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In my opinion, the primary reason for the existence of this article is some kind of pedophile/NAMBLA sub-text. There are a few articles like this, such as Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films, which primarily exists as a guide for pedophiles to know what movies they might wan to watch. I'm probably just being cynical, I'm sure the edit histories of the editors of these types of articles will show they work on a whole range of articles, not just the pedophile-interest ones. I hope I don't offend any NAMBLA members. Saikokira 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The actual article talks about other friendships as well, not just men/boys --perhaps it should be retitled to show the broader subject. I think there is good material there, but it needs  more careful organization.  DGG (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree that POV and OR are issues, and think nothing good can possibly come from it. Pharmboy 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Conflicted keep - I looked at this article the other day and had the "NAMBLA flash" about it, but I feel that an examination of this sort of relationship does have some encyclopedic value assuming that it's based on reliable secondary sources. There is a danger of POV pushing here (although the NAMBLA talk in this discussion strikes me as more than a little gratuitous) but rather than deletion the concerns with this article should be thrashed out on the talk page. Otto4711 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not nominating this for deletion because it simply needs work. Several of the sections are decently written and most of it is properly sourced. The subject as a whole is not worthy of encyclopedic treatment in a separate article, as the article is patently original research in that it compiles sources and information to make a case for the importance of the subject. It's also a blatant POV fork. It's a slightly impressive effort, but it's still fundamentally not neutral and never could be by it's very scope and definition. VanTucky  (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete At the risk of seeming WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm inclined to agree with nom. It's one of "those" articles where it has no glaring faults, but walks a fine line between relevance and irrelevance, while being neither abjectly harmful nor obviously useful...ultimately though, I think the higher standard should prevail. Maybe the user would care to userspace it. Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts) 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, as well. I've had issues about this article since I first saw it linked to The Cider House Rules.  It does read like a college essay, and the subject seems to be far too broad to be truly encyclopedic, and although it seems to be referenced, I have problems with the subjectivity of the subject matter, as I voiced on the talk page a while back.  Who is to say what relationships are positive?  Why is this academic?  IS it academic?  It may be construed as irrelevant and WP:OR.  The creator of the article obviously is very passionate about this subject (and others: see Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) and other associated articles), but, you know.  Squick. María ( críticame ) 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well I would say that, wouldn't I, having compiled the article.  The NAMBLA references above are pretty insulting, but otherwise your comments are measured.  'Negative' friendships are well documented and I've contributed many of them and this article adds balance.  It allows anyone searching the encyclopaedia to access learned papers etc. I created a new article as I couldn't see that it fits within other articles.  I used the word 'positive' because otherwise I suspected it would be interpreted as dodgy.  You won't find a single friendship referenced that is even remotely sexual.  As for relevance, I don't how many of you specialise in this field.  Single parent families are very common now and it is usually the adult male that is absent.  A lack of a positive male role model is shown to contribute to many problems, but men are put off.  They don't want to be the target of unjust comments like some on this page.  Happy to work on it more, but please don't just delete it.Tony 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Tony
 * Comment Tony, it's not just that the article is vaguely creepy. If it is so innocuous, why does the intro work so hard to say it's not sexual, and then go on to stumble about quite blatantly advocating for the importance of non-familial adult male friends for boys? It's that, just like your above comments about modern familial relations and male role models, you are creating synthesis original research in compiling the article. Not only that, but the article is clearly a POV fork. The article's very topic of conversation, as defined by it's title and introduction, are POV.  VanTucky  (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit until its acceptable. The tone does suggest a hidden agenda, frankly--the reader does think, well, why is this particular example here? I don't think its OR, but a rhetorical strategy to show how many types of such friendships are acceptable, with the implication unstated. However, it is true that many types of such relationships are in fact acceptable in western societies, (and additional ones elsewhere) and like many other relationships of all sorts there is often or perhaps always some psychosexual component. So there is something to write about. An honest discussion--in the article--of possible use by different agendas might clear the air. I hold to the principle that there is nothing about which an objective article is impossible. DGG (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A "a rhetorical strategy to show how many types of such friendships are acceptable" is not a encyclopedic article on a topic, it's an original research essay topic. Wikipedia is a compilation of what other reliable sources say, and there are no reliable sources expressly and solely dealing with "positive relationships between men and boys in literature and film". There are sources dealing with both components separately, but none synthesizing the two. That's an original research subject, plain and simple. VanTucky  (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and because the probable hidden agenda makes it improbable that neutrality will be consistently present. Golfcam 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced, and is a nice counterpoint to the plethora of Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in *** articles which presently festoon Wikipedia. If they aren't deletion fodder, then neither is this.  It contains quite a bit of well-sourced information, and I'd be reluctant to destroy this much of anyone's hard work, no matter what the topic. Hermitian 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, articles with a specific point of view to counterpoint another point of view are called POV forks, and are expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. VanTucky  (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment NPOV can be violated when individual articles on a subject are balanced, but by their disproportionate number compared to those on similar topics give a particular subject undue emphasis within Wikipedia. This problem can be eliminated by decreasing the number of articles on the overrepresented subject, or increasing the number of articles on similar subjects, and does not imply that the individual articles themselves lack NPOV or are biased.  Hermitian 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So let me get this, you're saying Wikipedia needs more positive coverage of pedophilia? First off, the articles in Wikipedia on pedophilia are not biased against pedophilia. It so happens that you may feel this way, but 99% of reliable sources confirm the fact that pedophilia is a violation of both human ethics and laws on every level. This is what the sources say. But despite all that, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for keep. VanTucky (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedophilia is simply the condition, on the part of an adult, of being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Last I looked, feelings were neither crimes, nor violations of human ethics.  Juxtoposing "pedophilia" with "child sexual abuse" in a plethora of article titles is about as POV as you can get.  It's like associating "hair color" with "mortgage fraud."  It's attempting to create an association in the mind of the reader while cleverly evading the obligation to support that association with facts.  It's called "building your conclusions into your definitions," and is a typical tactic of those flogging the Sex Abuse Agenda, who must continually resort to flim-flam and anecdote, because they don't have facts on their side. Hermitian 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just let that little rant on the woes of the poor, victimized pedophiles speak for itself. I don't want to continue this, as we're veering off into general discussion. If you have a beef with other articles, bring it up there. But other articles being biased is not a reason relevant to this article's deletion. VanTucky  (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)\
 * You've just made my point for me. Whenever a balanced article on this sort of subject appears, it attracts vigilante editors who fume and spew and say "NAMBLA" in every other sentence, and talk about "pedophiles" with venom dripping from their fangs as they type. Of course, these people protect the negative and biased articles, which pander to popular misconception, and cleverly lie by innuendo, juxtoposition, and omission.  That is why Wikipedia has endless "pedophilia and child sexual abuse in ..." articles, and all attempts to get even the sillier ones deleted fail.  On any topic remotely related to any kind of relationship between legal adults and legal minors, Wikipedia has about the same accuracy as a "special episode" of Oprah. Hermitian 01:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for all reasons stated above. --David Shankbone 00:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of original synthesis and a POV-fork to boot.-Wafulz 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and many of the other points raised above. --AliceJMarkham 06:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well-crafted, but nevertheless an effort to push POV through WP:SYN and manipulation of the list qualification conditions.  From the article, "This article includes intimate relationships, but excludes relationships where there are any sexual feelings involved...."  This doesn't work.  Inclusion on this qualification would require reliable third-party sourcing that the relationship is positive and reliable third-party sourcing that the relationship is absent sexual connotation.  Good luck with that.  Likewise, the inclusion conditions exclude child sexual abuse "whether or not the relationship was seen to be positive" but the list includes other criminal relationships that are perceived as positive (Martin's Day, especially).  And, needless to say, almost all of the prose passages, while well-sources, are simply unrelated content in an effort to reinforce the subtle POV attempts.  Nothing in the "Research into adult/child relationships" mentions or relates to film and literature.  There is nothing to salvage here.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the proverbial road paved with good intentions. Tony, you've obviously researched your topic quite well, but I think you'd better save this one to your hard drive because it's going to be deleted.  I would vote to delete for many of the reasons listed above.  You are a scholar, but there is room for adding to your vocabulary; and as with many scholars, you fail to consider common sense.  Intelligence, education and wisdom are different qualities, and the third is a combination of the first two, along with experience.  You should be aware that society, with good reason, is extremely sensitive to "friendships between men and boys", second only to a friendship between a male adult and a female child.  Vocabulary is more important in writing on a controversial subject, than on an unemotional subject.  Perhaps in taking down the article and rewriting it, you should consider other literature and film about mentoring; review (Google book, for example) other writing about the subject; and not confine this to "men and boys".  Good luck to you, and learn from the constructive criticism offered by all of the persons in this discussion.  Mandsford 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not just because of the obvious bias of whoever wrote it, but because even if if it didn't have a hidden agenda and the fact that much of the article bears no relation whatsoever to the title, I cannot for the life of me fathom why this should be an article at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't have an opinion on whether it should be kept or not. I don't think, though, that the bias of the first editor of an article should be a reason for deleting it. Biases are OK at Wikiversity, by the way. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate place for this, with links to Wikipedia anyway. A.Z. 19:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My reason for nominating this for deletion has nothing to do with the intentions of the author, I hardly know Tony on Wikipedia and to try and speak to his intentions would be inappropriate. The reason this should be deleted is because the subject as defined by the article's title and introduction is inherently biased, and no amount of different authorship could change that. VanTucky  (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that. I still don't have an opinion on whether it should be kept or not. A.Z. 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was about to type delete, but I actually read the article. It's not just listcruft or an essay, but as of now it is very well sourced and written, useful for an encyclopedia.  Perhaps it needs re-naming.  I don't questions motives or agendas. Bearian 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly interesting, and useful, and I would like to be able to read it somewhere. The encyclopedic factor makes me wonder, though. Could you elaborate on its usefulness for an encyclopedia? A.Z. 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also reviewed the article as changes have been made, and I still feel my nomination holds. It's still a POV fork, includes self-referential material (just like an essay) that seems disingenuous as to the article's intent, is comprised of sources solely dealing with either works of fiction or non-familial man-boy relationships, and none combining the two into a single encyclopedic subject worthy of such extensive coverage. So it's still WP:SYN. I also never said the article was listcruft, only that it included it. VanTucky  (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps a consensus could be expedited here if the nom could substantiate some of the things he claims about the article. Why is it a POV fork and what POV is it a fork of?  Why does he feel it is "disturbing," "disingenuous," and "blatant?" Why can't we just rename it to something less flame-baity and keep it? Hermitian 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, as this discussion stands the majority consensus is that it should be deleted. Not a single voice in support of keep has referred to any policies definitively supporting the retention of the the article, and several have expressed that they are conflicted about keeping the article because of its distasteful tone and content. There are a few dissenting voices, but they are in the minority on this. But disregarding that, I'd be happy to go into more detail. It is a POV fork because it represents only a positive viewpoint on non-familial relationships between adult men and male children. This does not encompass all viewpoints and facts on the subject, and as such is a violation of WP:NPOV. Second, a simple rename is not acceptable because this is synthesis original research, and even if it were inclusive of all viewpoints it would still be OR. No reliable, published sources actually speak significantly and solely on the depiction of non-familial relations between men and boys, either positively or negatively. There are plenty of sources about the relationships, about the development of adolescents (once referring to film, but not referring to adult-child relationships), and of course plenty of sources confirming that the instances of this particular depiction exist. But none of those go into encylopedic discussion about the topic specifically or prove that positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film is a notable and independent subject. The article takes sources that are peripherally related to one factor or another of the topic as a whole, and combines them to create an academic-style treatment. This is unacceptable, as Wikipedia only reports on topics that other people cover significantly, rather than using sources to create our own topics.  VanTucky  (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So change the title to something like "Cinematic Depictions of Male Mentoring Relationships." It seems to me you're trying to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer here, and the pile-on talking about pedophiles and NAMBLA seems like the typical treatment anything suspected of "sending the wrong message" in the Great Culture War receives on Wikipedia, regardless of its factual accuracy.  I'd also like to point out that consensus isn't a majority vote. Consensus is the lack of reasonable objections to the proposed plan.  Hermitian 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would call no references to policy in support of keep unreasonable, though the attitudes of those in favor certainly have been reasoned. I did not bring up NAMBLA or pedophiles in my nomination, this was brought up by others and I will not speak for them. I think likening the article to a bad faith campaign by anyone is both uncivil and untrue. What did mention is that the content and self-referential material about child sex abuse in the introduction made me very uncomfortable, and certainly confuses the intentions and subject matter of the article (not the author). As to the rename, again I'll reiterate my point. The POV fork status is just adding insult to injury for this article. Fixing the POV treatment of the subject would not alter the fact that the subject is not covered by any reliable, published sources but has been created by combining sources. And as a side note, it wouldn't just have to be rename, but a complete rewrite of the article to make it NPOV. VanTucky  (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine your POV fork argument vanishes if we put "Mentoring" or some similar term in the title, as such relationships are by definition positive, and the term is well defined and inclusive, and it can no longer be argued that only a subset of some larger topic is being selectively presented. I'd be surprised if no one we can use as a source has ever looked at the subject, and in any case, the arguments you are advancing never seem to get applied to the neverending series of "Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in " articles which are certainly a canonical example of WP:SYN, listcruft, and original research. The article is well-written, well-sourced, and a quite comprehensive and well thought out treatment of its subject matter, and I think the bar for deletion needs to be at the "high" setting because of this. Hermitian 00:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the change. Now we see whether the argument will vanish. A.Z. 01:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has enough issues that we can go in circles repeating the same arguements until Godwin's Law finally ends it. If there were no taboo, the article wouldn't exist from a lack of interest.  IMO, a consensus has been reached.  That the content is controversial and hits a lot of nerves doesn't change this.   Pharmboy 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again Herm, I'll ask you to keep complaints about other articles out of this discussion. I'm glad the article is no longer titled in a POV way. But this does not make the fact that none of its sources are about the depiction of this type of relationship in film and literature. There are sources about adolescent developement, and sources confirming that the films actually contain what the articles says they do. But none of the sources significantly or solely discuss the depiction of relationships between men and boys in fiction. It's not just about the number of sources and their reliability, it's that they do not treat the subject of the article. VanTucky  (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would say that the article needs major rewriting, not deletion. A.Z. 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No the article needs to be deleted if no reliable, published sources treat it. Not rewritten. VanTucky  (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What if this were called "List of movies that depict mentoring relationships between adults and children"? A.Z. 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about the name, it's about the subject matter. If it was just a list of movies and books depicting mentoring relationships between adults and children, then it would be trivia and listcruft, and probably deleted swiftly. VanTucky  (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What would differ it from the List of sexually active popes? A.Z. 01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (unindent) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this article. You might familiarize yourself with the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as these are all considered to be fraudulent arguments by the community consensus. VanTucky  (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion nor an argument, I only asked a question. A.Z. 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment If those who have used such an ingenious variety of arguments for deleting the article had spent the same effort in improving it, perhaps it would have served more to improve the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since most of us don't think the subject itself is worthy of an encyclopedia entry, that comment doesn't particular jibe with most of us, if I may speak for the Deleters. --David Shankbone 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You hit it on the head David. Forgive the vulgarity, but you can't polish a turd. VanTucky  (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you are just being offensive VanTucky. And you the one who aspires to Wiki standards by your comments above.Tony 23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Tony
 * First off, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings Tony. But negative comments about contributions and articles are not forbidden under any policy in Wikipedia. Personal attacks, directed at and about a particular individual are strictly forbidden. But I did not call you, or your contributions in particular, a "turd", I called an article that. And there is no policy that even discourages me from being critical of articles. You are not the only contributor to the article I was critical of. VanTucky  (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is exactly the sort of thing that has been expressed forbidden on Wikipedia from the start. It violates two of the three core polices. It violates Neutral point of view as it is an essay which is looking for and promoting a positive relationship between men and boys, even with the recent name change; and it violates No original research as it is an original essay created by the author, sustained by his own original research. The subject of the essay is Interpersonal relationship - which is already dealt with. Wiki is not the place for people's individual views and research - no matter how well done. If the author publishes a book on the subject, and it becomes notable, it may be quoted or used as a source in Interpersonal relationship, but even then it wouldn't warrant an article to itself. SilkTork 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I read above that another user said this article was vaguely creepy. I got the same impression. I'm sure this was not Tony's attention. I know someone above also pointed out that the article went out of its way to show that these were stories about positive mentors not perverted old men. I think this is probably what kind of gives it that sort of creepy feeling. I would have to say I would not delete it yet, it is well written and sourced. I would suggest shorting it a bit. I think that maybe if all of us that are uncomfortable about certain aspects of the article could point out what they are that this could be a good article. I would say give Tony a little more time, I know it feels to have things that you have worked on brought up for deletion. Jmm6f488 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some user's feelings about the content are not the reason it should be deleted. Please read the above comments about the article's nature as synthesis original research. VanTucky  (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentI did, VanTucky you are right the whole need for this article is a little iffy. Maybe some of the content could be added to another article. Jmm6f488 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and thrash out on the talk page, per Otto and DGG. This is, at its core, a valid and encyclopedic topic.  VanTucky is write that there is potential for POV and OR, but I'm not sure that this is overwhelming, or even particularly problematic with the article as it stands.  It still needs a better title, but the existence of many of the sources, such as "Relationships with Non-Parental Adults and Child Behavior" or "Men and Child Protection: Developing New Kinds of Relationships Between Men and Children," I think clearly attest to the validity of this topic. --JayHenry 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Several editors seem to have mistaken what I am saying. I am not saying that the article simply has original research in it. I am saying, that since not a single reliable source directly addresses the topic in entirety, that the subject itself is synthesis original research. It's about being a fundamentally unsuitable topic for discussion on Wikipedia, as it is not addressed by reliable sources. VanTucky  (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I get what you are saying. Basically if the article could quote so and so's research paper Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film, etc and bring the topic together as a whole it would be exceptable. But as it stands now it seems to be just a loosely constructed category? If this is what you mean than I would agree it needs something to tie it together as a topic. Jmm6f488 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I mean. VanTucky  (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just another list of trivia in disguise and violates our five pillars.  Burntsauce 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator, SqueakBox 18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is an essay, at least borderline original research, clearly synthesis of other sources, and not an encyclopedia article or topic. And the potential that it's a gateway for inappropriate pedophillic content is disturbing.  The combination of the issues makes it clear to me...  Georgewilliamherbert 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't follow nominator's reasoning. VanTucky appears to be oblivious to the revilement of males as inherent sexual predators against young boys that has developed in western societies during the post WW2 period, conspicuously fronted by radical feminism. The sex abuse scandals involving the Catholic priesthood more or less at large, and other cases, may suggest that there really is something to these assertions that there is something very wrong with men. My point is not to discuss that issue, only to comment on the nominator's argument: "What's next? Mothers and daughters in film? Friendship in films? " The current subject is obviously not random and in the context of the vilification of men in general vis-à-vis boys, this article attempts to point to some sources for the perspective where these relationships are not predatory. This may of course be done in a POV or NPOV fashion. I don't see a problem with the article in that respect. The nominator also states: "What's with the self-referential material that comprises the introduction?" I do not understand what is meant by that. I see no problems with the introduction as such. Further the assertion that the article is "intended to prove positive the unerring importance of "intimate relationships" between men and boys" may or may not be true – I find no reason to try and guess Tony Sandel's motivation since we are judging the article on it's own merits, not based on the intents of its creator. __meco 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment First off, you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is not here to prove any point, or bring awareness to any factor of any issue. A WP:POINT argument for keep is not acceptable under any circumstances. Your ranting assertion about how I am "oblivious to the revilement of males as inherent sexual predators against young boys that has developed in western societies during the post WW2 period, conspicuously fronted by radical feminism" is not a reason that this article should be kept per Wikipedia's policy. In fact, the idea that this article should stay to counteract any other idea is in direct opposition to Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. Articles do not, or at least should not, exist to prove any point. They exist to be an encyclopedic resource recounting the facts about a subject as verified in reliable, published sources. And as no reliable sources directly cover "positive relationships between men and boys in film and literature", the topic as covered in the article is synthesis original research. By self-referential material, I meant the extensive phrases in which the article talks about itself. Phrases revolving around "This article is/is not..." are not encyclopedic content. VanTucky  (talk) 19:16, 1 August 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.