Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging MARTIJN


 * 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) Pcap ping  10:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Vereniging MARTIJN

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This organization's claim to notability seems to derive from a single incident, in which they were briefly in the news while being sued for the removal of pictures of the Royal family's children. While the organization exists for pro-pedophilia advocacy, there is no real independent evidence of their significance outside of primary sources like their website. I have not found any major profiles of them in the news or scholarly papers. Dominic·t 11:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough coverage to meet WP:N.   Will Beback    talk    16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepVeren. Martijn is a long established institution that may now be the only existing remnant of the above-ground legal (non-lawbreaking) paedophile movement/community that flourished in northwest Europe in the 1970s and early 80s. It's an exceptional case of a community that is handled with an unusual degree of silence.  The question is whether Wikipedia wants to emulate this politically motivated silence.  A true encyclopedia should be unbiased enough to deal with objects that are subjected to sociopolitical silencing campaigns.  The silence is two-sided - mainstream journalism mostly does not want to publicize a legal paedophile organization, and the members of the organization for the most part only survive in their communities by maintaining a low profile.  An encyclopedia should as much as possible not take part in the political exertions peculiar to its time in history, and should recognize when silence is artificial.  There is sufficient documentation to show that this organization exists and has the status claimed for it.  It is always a mystery to me why such motions for deletion in Wikipedia are so often put forward by editors ignoring the content of the pages in other languages. "I have not found any major profiles of them in the news" - what about the article at http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail.aspx?ref=hv&articleID=G3LEB5K9  cited in the Dutch article?  This is an article of 1218 words - sufficiently major? True, some of the links in the Dutch article are for web news stories that are now deleted - does this qualify as lack of sourcing or are the articles retrievable in a web archive?  Some work needs to be done to bring this information forward again, but deletion of the existing English article is a step in the wrong direction. Kristoforchristiaan (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The Dutch article appears to have more information, and from what I can tell, there's enough notability to the incident that it could be renamed and refocused if necessary, but not deleted outright. I'm adding an expansion/translation request to the page. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In particular this source from the Dutch page gives pretty substantial coverage and is nothing to do with the royal family incident. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of very few pro-pedophilia organizations in the world and has been covered by the media at least all over Europe, not even restricted to this single affair, which already constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Was very widely covered in the media here in The Netherlands. The article seems pretty balanced and well-sourced as well for a low-traffic article. Smocking (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They pretty consistently get media attention whenever any pedophilia-related news hits the headlines. They creep me out, but notability is not an issue in my opinion. Smocking (talk) 22:02, 18 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.