Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtuous Pedophiles


 * 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   no consensus. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Virtuous Pedophiles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Disputed notability. The Zarembo reference contains neither of the the words "virtuous" nor "web" only a passing mention. Please debate the notability, not the subject matter. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, it does. It's on page two.— James Cantor (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So it does, briefly. That's hardly "significant coverage". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Zarembo reference doesn't have to provide significant coverage. The topic merely has to have significant coverage somewhere, as per WP:NWEB, such as the Salon article gives.  There is no policy saying that every reference has to provide significant coverage.  The Zarembo reference provides only tangential mention, and it receives only tangential mention on the page, which is just as it should be.— James Cantor (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone reading will notice that I make no claim that every reference has to include significant coverage. Which sources, other than Salon, do you assert meet the requirement for significant coverage in multiple sources? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/equilibrio/60623-portador-de-desvio-socialmente-inaceitavel-pedofilo-teme-sair-do-armario-e-pedir-ajuda.shtml
 * http://www.information.dk/321800
 * http://www.mp.go.gov.br/portalweb/8/noticia/55575b7287ae362783d402333ced71f7.html&titulo=Grupos%20querem%20prevenir%20abuso%20sexual%20tratando%20pedófilos
 * http://www.auriverde.am.br/site/noticias/ler/grupos-querem-prevenir-abuso-sexual-tratando-pedofilos
 * http://www.sexologytoday.org/2013/07/happy-birthday-virtuous-pedophiles.html
 * — James Cantor (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None of which are in the article?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to adding them; I just didn't think they added to the article when I first wrote it. They just seemed like more cites saying the same thing.  But if it is the consensus that the article needs it to justify its notability, as I say, I have no objection.  Shall I just add them?— James Cantor (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable topic, a pro-pedophile rant in its current form, not NPOV and I dont think, looking at the article, that we can make it NPOV and have any bit of the article left. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hardly a rant. NPOV is established by reflecting what is in the RS's, not by balancing what we ourselves think of as the good/bad sides.  What in the article is any more "pro-" than the RS's?  Are there any major "anti-" RS's that are missing?— James Cantor (talk)
 * This is such a fringe group I would be surprised if there are any/many critical RS's available, but that is not a reason to have an article that appears to only have pro RS's given how fringe the group and its beliefs actually are. We need a neutral article if we are going to have one at all (I will only edit the article myself if and when it survives this afd). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. That view mistakes "neutral" in the RW sense from "neutral" in the WP sense. That you or I or anyone else thinks there should by more RSs expressing one or another side is irrelevant.  As already noted, there are several thousand google hits, and when (and if) other RSs come about expressing other views, then we most certainly should expand the article to include them.  We cannot, however, second guess the RS's.  I can only caution readers to be very sure how much of the collective opinion is really about following WP policies (which say to keep the page) and how much is about feeling squeamish about the topic and about our own instead of WP's idea of what neutral means.— James Cantor (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of any squeamishness here so far, seems like a red herring, at the moment. If I were squeamish I would afd NAMBLA etc not this article. I dont believe this article fits our definition of notability and I think there are RS issues due to the fringe nature of the topic, there are many fringe subjects with similar issues of which this just happens to be one. As an experienced WP editor I have a good understanding of what WP means by "neutral" and/or "notable", hence my use of the term fringe, while the initiator of the afd, Pigs on the Wing, is certainly even more experienced than I am on this project so I dont believe misreading of policies is an issue here either. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Folks using phrases such as "uck," "pro-pedophilia rant" and so on do indeed suggest squeamishness (at least, to me). I've already posted our definition of notability (WP:NWEB), and no one has contested the RSs that fulfill it.  So, acknowledging that the topic only just makes it over the line, it is indeed demonstrably over the line.— James Cantor (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The person who said "uck" rejected the term while my pro pedophile rant comment is in no way based on squeamishness (in another afd I might have said "pro-GMOs rant" or whatever), and I stick by what I said based on my initial reading of the article before I re-directed it yesterday, it was a comment on neutrality and fringe and not based on squeamishness, I have been around similar WP articles too much to be squeamish in 2013 re this topic. We are here on this afd to see whether the article is over the line or not, we cant actually say it is or it isnt until the afd is closed in a few days time. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * People seem to have read the first few words in my comment and not the entire statement. I said my initial response was, "Uck!" but on reflection, I think it's important to keep it but only after rewriting the article and ensuring there are no direct links to the website. Liz Let's Talk 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs)
 * I am wondering if Liz and Squeak understand that the group is for pedophiles who think their thoughts towards children are abnormal and support each other in their goal to live a life without acting on their perversions. The site is geared to preventing child abuse. The site/group is the opposite of pro-paedophilia - if anything it is an anti-paedophilia site run by paedophiles. I don't understand why it is being described as a pro-paedophilia group that should not be linked to etc and I am thinking that maybe you both have not properly read the wiki article properly?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the article just fine, thanks. Opposing pedophiles acting on their desires is not anti-pedophilia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The fringe POV promoted by this article is that there exist solutions to pedophilia problems other than indefinite imprisonment, indefinite psychiatric hospitalization, or castration by physical or chemical means. The mainstream POV is that only such forcible measures are actually effective. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is being somewhat simplistic but govt solutions tend towards authoritarianism and punishment even for victimless crimes, which sexualizing minors isnt. What has your comment really got to do with the afd, though?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This article should be deleted because it is promoting the fringe POV previously described, in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * David, regarding your comment prior to this one I don't think the article is saying that at all but anyway. Yes, of course any individual judged to being an ongoing risk to children (high risk and predatory pedophiles and sociopaths etc) should be held indefinitely in prison - few would argue against that and laws exist regarding that. Obviously given the heinous crime of child abuse this topic is going to provoke strong views.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I removed the POV statement/sources, so now it's just reporting on the web site, but I don't think it passes WP:GNG. Ansh666 21:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rewrite At first, I thought, uck! Bad! Delete this garbage. But now I think from a purely information basis, it is factually interesting to know this group exists. Better to know than not to know, I think. But the entry should be rewritten so it isn't so supportive and there should never be any direct links to this group elsewhere on web. I'd put it on my watchlist to make sure this doesn't happen. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 21:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address WP:N - WP:INTERESTING isn't a reason to keep. Ansh666 21:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The relevant WP policy is WP:NWEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."  The Slate article and other available RS's (including my own, but I did not cite myself as part of avoiding COI) establish that.  Multiple, very notable experts have commented on the group, and googling it gives several thousand hits.— James Cantor (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per James Cantor.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, I believe that the WP:NWEB argument is stronger than the arguments put forward for deletion. Additionally as this site/group is only a year old I believe it is likely that in the coming months and years further reliable sources will come to be available.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there's enough RS coverage here to meet NWEB. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per James Cantor. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Very minor passing coverage in RS. Addiitonally, the main editor to defend the page here is quoted for about half the page itself, which doesn't fill me with confidence StuartDouglas (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although there are sources providing only passing coverage, the Slate article and the links listed above all provide dedicated coverage. That there exist RSs providing only passing coverage doesn't cancel the presence of articles providing full coverage.  Secondly, I wrote the article without making any quotes to references to myself; they were added by others after this AfD was filed.— James Cantor (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Little notability, most hits would not be considered RS. Caffeyw (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Little" notability is not the issue, many WP articles have only little notability. Enough notability is set by WP:NWEB, which this topic meets (multiple RSs providing more than passing mention).  Having other hits are not RS's does not take away from the number of sources that are RS's. NWEB pertains to the total number of locatable sources, not the proportion of hits that are RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS DELETE Toxic and injurious to our reputation that we give any credence to this non-notable nonsense. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its being "nonsense" is not relevant. Wikipedia has numerous articles about movements, ideas, or groups that could fairly be considered "nonsense." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2013 (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.