Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-pedophile activism

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. —Kurykh 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-pedophile activism

Pro-pedophile activism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a POV fork started by a now banned user now banned for engaing in activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia and for the prurpose of promoting pro [pedophile activism to a wider audience. Whil;e we have articles on the mainstream animal rights activism there are many other notable activisms that do not have articles such as peace activism, earth activism, cannabis activism etc and I see no reason why the much less notable pedophile activism should have an article. We already ahve articles on specific groups and individuals within the movement and that, along with a brief mention in the pedophile article, is sufficienet for the notability of this tiny, extremeist organisation. SqueakBox 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep While I'm going to read more in detail to check for possible POV, as far as I can tell this is not a POV fork in any way. It is a history of an international movement by well-known individuals and lobbying groups, not simply an article detailing arguments for pedophilia. However repulsive the actions of this predatory subculture may be, it is a very high-profile and well-documented history of their attempts to be legitimized. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• The sections on "Other significant views" and "Ethics" need to be swiftly removed, as they are basically either improperly sourced, irrelevant, possibly OR, and most of all, totally POV. The early history section needs to be cleaned up as well, and for a subject with so many opponents (basically, everyone) the criticism section should be expanded. I am also concerned about the statement that a Dutch gay-rights group publicly supported pedophile activists. It is my understanding, from sourced information in the main homosexuality history articles and personal experience, that the international gay rights movement has always been extremely strident in their criticism of pedohilia in order to deflate accusations that homosexuality is linked to child abuse. But these issues irregardless, I still think it's a notable encyclopedic topic that should be covered. Who else but Wikipedia is better equipped to keep this neutral? We have a whole Wikiproject to watchdog this type of article. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the POVness of the ethics and views sections, articles that document activist groups are obviously going to document their POV. We can objectively document what a group's POV is without endorsing it. The pro-choice article, likewise, would document the POV of the pro-choice movement without endorsing it. Let's not let the controversial subject matter of this article influence us to edit it with unreasonable standards.

The statements of the Dutch gay rights movement supporting pedophile activists are documented, as are the movement's shifts toward disassociating itself from pedophiles and pederasts. Phenomenons such as pederasty are very much related to homosexuality, especially if you look at things from an historical standpoint. Mike D78 22:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't saying the source was false, I was saying that I didn't want a single group's statement used to make it look as if the gay rights movement in general has ever supported pro-pedohile activists. Because, if you look at the numbers of gay lobbies for/against pedophile groups, you'll see that that is overwhelmingly not the case. As to the archaically close relationship between homosexuality/pederasty, I think it goes without saying that it's pretty well documented. And I really object to the ethics section in that it seems pretty obvious that part of the agenda is changing ethical standards when info about their intention to change perceptions about them and their activities is both outlined in their goals, and more importantly, something that goes without saying. That's what a lobby/activist group does, is change perceptions on issues. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken; most modern homosexual activism distances itself from pedophiles and pederasts, if not condemning them completely. But the history of the relationship between homosexual and pedophile activism, not just in Holland but in the U.S. as well, to an extent, cannot be objectively ignored. I know people hate that, because fundies love to derisively associate gays with pedophiles, but the facts are the facts.

I feel the conclusion of the history section, detailing the actions of the ILGA, etc., pretty well establishes the distance between these two camps at this point. Mike D78 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the reasons for deletion stated. If the article is not deleted, it should, at the very least, be merged with the Anti-pedophile activism article, and probably both should then be merged into the pedophile article. DPeterson^talk 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced article however much we may not like the subject. It has far too much verified information to be merged into another article. It is not an inherently POV article and can be kept to NPOV as VanTucky says. Davewild 20:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning keep On one hand, it would be egregiously POV to delete this article while leaving up anti-pedophile activism. But on the other hand, the article as written needs some work. If it's improved, I'll change to keep. Blueboy96 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - The original creator of the article is irrelevant; this article has been edited by many people over the years who have worked to keep it NPOV. As for the other claims of the person who proposed this idea, they are simply incorrect. We do have articles for various other forms of activism such as the Peace movement, the Ecology movement, and activism related to cannabis. Clearly this movement is well-documented enough to warrant its own article, and the alleged "extremist" nature of the movement is irrelevant in determining whether an encyclopedic entry should be maintained or not. Mike D78 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)— Mike D78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Speedy keep per Mike D78 --ざくら木 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This proposal is the latest in a rapid succession of merge and delete snowballs. This subject understandably shocks most people (hence the veiled moral protectionism), but as the sources show, the article is noteworthy and represent a lot of good work on the part of many editors. SqueakBox's fallacious guilt-by-association argument about banned editors is also embarrasingly grubby and unwarrented for an informational resource with no single author, such as Wikipedia. Samantha Pignez 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a difference of opinion as to whether Samantha Pignez is a SPA account or not. Folks may if they choose check his edit history here: [[1]]. -Jmh123 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I vigorously disagree with the approach described, but I just as vigorously sympathize with the motivation behind it. Keeping the entry NPOV is not as simple as some folks are making it sound. It is zealousy guarded against any changes. Would be happy to have the future participation of the editors voting here to keep, especially those that see a need for improvement. -Jmh123 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• If there's some a group of users who think they own this article, you've got my full support and attentions in debunking that notion. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the problem with this article as of late is that people are jumping in and making significant changes without properly discussing them first. What little discussion has been had has consisted of a lot of hostile comments, unrelated discussion, and frequent distracting procedural votes concerning merges, etc. I think this article can be improved, but everyone involved must make a greater effort to cooperate. Additionally, people must not let the controversial subject matter keep them from making objective judgements. Mike D78 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What you just said sounds like a whole lot of obfuscation about a lack of inclusiveness to me. Users are directly instructed to be bold in updating articles, especially in cases of clear violation of policies. Distracting procedure on merges? Merges happen because of a clear procedure establishing a majority consensus. Unless major changes were made without any explanation or discussion at all (which I don't see happening consistently) then it looks to me like users are just fighting edits by "outsiders" in order to preserve their version of things. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply agreeing with Samantha that it seems like there has been a snowballing of proposals concerning merges, deletions, etc. lately. These proposals have been considered unnecessary in the past, and there has been blanking, redirecting, and attempted merging as of late that was carried out against consensus. These things are against the rules, distracting, and only cause increased resentment. Mike D78 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps overly detailed, somewhat in need of fixing, and definitely in need of careful watching -- but none of those come close to reasons for deletion in the face of the actual referenced notability and impact of the subject. WP:AFD ain't for clean-up, and certainly not as a tool in someone's personal crusade. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Reading this talk page makes me realize how few people actually read this articles and check them out in-depth before commenting. 90%+ of this article was created and added by now banned pedophile SPA accounts. Check the history of the article, don't just take my word for it. The vast majority of references to the article are from IPCE.info, a source that only a moron could claim meets Wikipedia sourcing requirements. Many of the sources now link to websites that have been knocked off of the internet in general. Simply because people have added a ton of sources to an article doesn't mean an article is "well-sourced." That's ridiculous. LOOK at the sources themselves. A majority of them source one website, a poorly-coded HTML page which is kept up by one guy... whose claims are taken as gospel when you read this article. Ridiculous.

Both this article and the anti-pedophile activism article fail notability as well, I can count on one hand the amount of actual news stories done on both the pro- and anti- pedophile movements. This article is openly referenced by those who created and populated it with content as being little more than their own propaganda that they can use to recruit and steer pedophiles towards their organizations as the article itself comes up as one of the top google searches regarding this topic... again, due to the non-notability of the topic itself.

I'm certain that this article will be kept and I'm equally as certain that it will continue to be dominated by POV pedophile SPA's that will continue to spam it with propaganda, using Wikipedia as a vehicle to try to gain credibility. At the end of the day, nothing will change regarding this article or the reality surrounding this article since it's creation. XavierVE 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC) — XavierVE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing admin: XavierVE is a self-admitted single-purpose account, and the owner of Perverted Justice. See here. While I am just as opposed to pedophilia and feel self-identified pedophiles should not be allowed to edit, NPOV is NPOV. Blueboy96 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Exactly the same can be said for Mike D78 and Samantha Pignez, SPA's with a strong pro pedophile activism agenda and xavier clearly has at least as much right and as little COI here as these 2 zaccounts, SqueakBox 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt I am POV and I've said that a million times, which is why you can count the number of edits I've done in these areas on one hand. Do note that I also believe the anti-pedophile activism article should ALSO be deleted for non-notability, which at the end of the day would remove a good chunk of hits we get from that article. Still, if a SPA sockpuppet like Mike D78 is going to vote then this SPA non-sockpuppet will do the same thing. XavierVE 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, and you have no right to frequently accuse me of such to undermine my comments. I am perhaps still an SPA at this point, but I am also still a new member. I have made contributions to other areas in the past, before I registered, and plan to continue doing so, but I don't have all day to spend on Wikipedia.

You have certainly made more than the number of edits you can count on a hand concerning this topic, unless your hand has, like, 60 fingers. But Samantha is definitely not an SPA, so I will be deleting the disclaimer next to her name. Mike D78 05:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The question here Xavier is not "Does this article need wresting from the hands of those who are pro-pedophilia activists?", or even simply, "Does this article need quite a bit of cleanup?" but "Is this a historical topic that is notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment?" The answer is yes. The article, in order to preserve NPOV and good verification, needs to chopped down practically to stub size in my opinion. But how can we delete a pro pedophile activism article and leave up an anti-pedophile activism article, and still claim to be neutral and comprehensive? Doesn't only providing information on groups and individuals on only one side of a contentious issue fundamentally violate a neutral point of view? I despise those who would pervert (how apt a word) Wikipedia to legitimize organizations (such as this Dutch group, who has ever heard of them?) that are not notable. But at the same time, if we can remove the subtle (and not so subtle) language that puts these activists and their crimes in a positive light, then it is obvious to me that the positive role that Wikipedia can play in this arena is to expose the simple, neutral facts about a long history of these predators attempts to have their crimes legalized. For people who hate those who perpetrate violence against children, the crime would be to not make the facts about pro-pedophile activists known. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All I see is more guilt-by-association arguments on the part of Von Erck. Simply the fact that some previous editors are now banned is no reason to discredit all of their contributions. Besides, when I look at the history of this article, I see changes made by many editors of many different perspectives. It is hard to believe the accusation that one camp has succesfully "owned" this article for more than two years now.

As for his accusations about the sources, I would like to know what exact problem he has with them, apart from the fact that he apparently doesn't care for their web design. Mirrors of academic articles and studies seem relevant to me, and the proper procedure is to look for better sources to replace ones you question rather than immediately deleting the sourced info. Mike D78 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mike, you're both right and wrong. It is true that not all of the contributions of banned editors are negligible. But the contributions to pedophile articles by editors banned for POV-pushing on pedophilia are absolutely to be discredited. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all people banned concerning the pedophilia-related articles were banned for POV-pushing. Some were banned for personal attacks and other such conduct, and some were banned simply for their self-identification. Mike D78 05:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read my actual comment, I said that both the anti- and pro- articles should be deleted but check the history, someone vandalized my comment. In short, don't try to throw out random straw men at people, please. Otherwise: The article, in order to preserve NPOV and good verification, needs to chopped down practically to stub size in my opinion. That will never happen and if you try it, you'll end up meeting the same opposition Squeakbox has by those interested in ramming crap sources into this article since it's creation. Good luck though. XavierVE 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I did read all of your commentary, but comments or not, your support of Delete would mean that this article would be deleted, and the other would stay. There is no AFD for anti-pedophile activism. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox met opposition because he blanked, redirected, and merged against consensus, and met criticism from many users for his unagreed upon changes.

I also don't believe many people are interested in reducing this article to "practically stub size;" there's too much information for that. And again, I would invite Xavier to mention specific problems he has with specific sources on the talk page, and we can perhaps find better ones. Mike D78 05:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for your point of view on the majority consensus, I was stating what I believe is the work that needs doing. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That comment was in reponse to Von Erck; sorry, these edit conflicts are making things confusing for me. And I was not stating my view on the majority consensus; and admin claimed a discussion to be "no consensus" before Squeak blanked and redirected regardless. The vote was actually 3-6. Mike D78 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I count over 40 non-web sources. Even discounting the books related to the movement, there are major news sources. and non-movement related academic journals. Individual items thought not to have RSs can be challenged. DGG (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article is well-sourced, subject is notable. Also, I suggest everyone read Talk:Pro-pedophile activism#Why I am going to put this article up for afd. Several of the nominator's claims have already been debunked there. This AfD is the result of long debates about having its content merged into Pedophilia or back into Anti-pedophile activism to create a single "activism" article again. The original forking was not for POV reasons, but because of constant edit-warring as each side tried to eliminate sources for the other in the joined article. The split occurred to provide individual articles that could neutrally discuss each side of the debate, so it is disingenuous to call this a POV fork. As to the claims the article is "zealously guarded," well, the same could be said about Anti-pedophile activism. Proponents of the two views are, of course, going to be watching both articles, but there are plenty of neutral editors who are keeping things sane at the moment. The problems come when one group tries to insert their own viewpoint into the other article, which leads to revert warring and accusations of bias. This is not a valid reason for deleting either article, it's just typical Wikidrama. -- Kesh 05:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My commemts ghavent been debunked anywhere. Why no peace acticvism article? Why no Earth rights activism article. Why no cannabis activism rights article. All these movements are far more ntoable than pedophile activism and it strikes me as odd that people dont address the notability issue but make silly claims of debunking which simply dont correspond to reality. It seems strange to me that people think pedophile acticvism is more notable than peace activism etc, very strange indeed, SqueakBox 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Ecology movement article is exactly the same subject matter as a "Earth activism" article. But no one would name it "Earth activism", becuase it's an ambiguous and asinine title for a movement that doesn't exist. There are no self-described "Earth activists". There is however, Environmentalism. You're just setting up straw men to defeat by using non-existent terminology for real movements. Same thing with "peace activism". It's called the whole series of articles on Anti war efforts, starting with a long summation and going on to articels for every single war. For "cannabis activism", there is not only the Legal issues of cannabis internationally, but the even more specific Decriminalization of non-medicinal marijuana in the United States. These articles exist SqueakBox. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• That is my whole point, the cannabis articles you mention are not about cannabis activists but about the legal issues of cananbis and involve law enforcement as much as activism. As a cannabis activist (former in practice) I wouldnt have dreamt of creating a cannabis activism article because it would eb a POV fork. I'd happily see an article on pedophilia and the law etc, SqueakBox 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually glad you bring up the articles concerning marijuana, particularly this one. There doesn't, at the moment, seem to be any agreed upon model for editing the pro-pedophile activism article. Marijuana legalization in the U.S. is also a controversial topic; not as controversial pedophile activism, granted, but I believe that article may be able to provide an example of how to objectively document a controversial activist movement.

When I look at the article on decriminalization of non-medical marijuana in the U.S., most of what I read concerns the activities and claims of activists. The vast majority of studies and articles referenced in that entry support marijuana legalization. I know there are several people, articles, and studies that would oppose marijuana legalization. I mean, I took drug education classes in school; public opinion is generally more against marijuana than is documented in that article. But other articles (such as the main article on marijuana, the article on legal issues, etc.) would more thoroughly cover more of the opinions in the mainstream. When you read an article on an activist movement, you expect to hear the arguments that movement puts forth.

Some people seem to think, concerning the pedophile activism article, that nearly every claim by the activists must be immediately followed by a counter-claim refuting the statement, or that the claims in support must be severely trimmed down, as if editors want to emphasize "Wikipedia doesn't support this, we really don't!!1" That's not the way articles of this nature are supposed to work. People reading articles on a non-mainstream activist movement are interested in reading about their non-mainstream claims. Other articles, such as the one on pedophilia and the one on child sexual abuse, are the place for a more thorough overview of the mainstream views on these topics. Mike D78 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Er try the ELF, SqueakBox 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even though many people disagree with the viewpoints promoted by this movement, pro-pedophile activism is definitely notable, and thus there should be a Wikipedia article on the topic. Although this movement is not as big as it used to be, at least not in the same way (for the internet introduced a new arena for discussion, advocacy, and activism), there is an abundance of legitimate literature detailing the past and present of pro-pedophile activism. Besides, there are still active proponents today, and the movement has received coverage in print, digital, and other media formats. Furthermore, there is a response from various communities and officials that warrants inclusion of this topic on Wikipedia. Since the subject meets the guideline for notability - it passes the Google test and is amply sourced both on the internet and in print form - and the current article is pretty-well written and referenced, my vote is to Keep. Homologeo 12:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep Extremely in-depth, well-sourced article about an inherently notable movement. Any argument for deletion is bound, in the end, to come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Understandable, but that isn't a good reason to delete. JulesH 12:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article, dump most of it and start nearly from scratch with actual NPOV wording and methods. As much as I detest these people and know that the nominator has the best intentions as do some of those who call for the articles deletion, this is a notable subject and deserves space on wikipedia. Alterniatively, there seems to be plenty of room in the pedophilia article for the NPOV portions of both pro and anti articles, so merging would be a really good idea if we could draw enough attention for a proper merger vote. We have to remind ourselves, as Jules did, that IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a reason for reletion. If you think the article is POV, edit it, merge it, etc. If you feel that POV editors are becoming a problem, enlist the help of WP:MEDCAB or the arbitration committee. Deleting an article is NOT the solution to editors taking it on a POV parade, no matter how vile or disgusting that POV is. In the end, I think an admin should throw a snowball at this one and encourage the involved parties to try arbitration rather than unproductive bickering. CaveatLector^Talk 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic, even if people don't like it. AfD is not a proper methodology for improving an article; the proper methodology is improving it. --Ace of Swords 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the article wasnt afd'd to improve it but to delete it as unnotable, SqueakBox 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If anything, this is a complete blow out for your lobby, SqueakBox. If the media really want to smear wikipedia, they now have the evidence that "13 out of 16 editors approved an article on "pro-pedophile activism"" 86.131.41.244 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any smearing would clearly be unfair; Wikipedia is not censored to remove encyclopedic information others find objectionable. Mike D78 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment while you may be right re the media or other critics I dont think you can conclude from that that this is a complete blow out from my POV, not at all, SqueakBox 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Notable topic. Hitler, natural disasters, and the pro-life and pro-choice movements are all notable, so Wikipedia has articles on all of them. That doesn't say anything about how Wikipedia or Wikipedians actually feel about any of those topics. It doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses any of them. Likewise, having an article on pro-pedophile activism does not endorse it; it only gives information about it. --Alynna 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - As stated by SqueakBox, this article has heavy POV problems (and was written mostly by now-banned users). Also, I don't think this point has been stressed enough yet: this article is over ten times longer than the anti-pedophile activism article! How is that balanced at all? Both of these articles should actually be deleted and/or merged either into a single article or, better yet, into an existing article that Wikipedia already has. --Potato dude42 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The anti article actually has quite a bit of room for expansion; it was created less than two months ago. I may work on expanding it within the next few days, if others would like to help.

We've had the debate over merging into pedophilia a few times; I personally feel an article about a medical topic isn't the place for historical and sociological information about activism. Mike D78 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The authorship of this raises severe WP:COI concerns. If Wikipedia was ideal, I'd say that this needs to be rewritten by someone with no ties to the subject whatsoever. The problem is, this isn't realistically going to happen. Having separate anti- and pro- articles just sets up two big fat punching bags for editors to pummel, revert war over, and raise general hand-waving freakoutery about. Crystallina 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Having just one article on all activism was even worse, so I'm not sure how this is a solution. -- Kesh 11:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:POVFORK is why. The article under discussion has turned into exactly what this page is warning about, and that's even without taking the conflict of interest problems into account. Crystallina 18:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The pro and anti articles seem to cover essentially different subjects to me: the pro article covers activism for the acceptance of pedophilia, and the anti article covers activism against child sexual abuse. Most of the things mentioned in the anti article so far (online stings, naming and shaming offenders in newspapers, etc.) are unrelated to pro-pedophile activists. The activism described on the "anti" page is more than simply activism that is in reponse to "pro pedophile activism," thus, despite the page titles, this doesn't seem to me to be a POV fork.

In my opinion, a better title for the "anti pedophile activism" page would be "anti child sexual abuse activism," or "public opposition to child sexual exploitation," or something along those lines. Currently the article only covers a few modern "anti pedophile" organizations. The article could and should be expanded to cover the history of public awareness of and opposition to child sexual abuse. A good starting place might be the Victorian Era and the raised age of consent laws that were passed partially in response to child prostitution. Then, an overview could be provided of how public reaction to sexual abuse developed and changed, and the different laws that were lobbied for and passed as a response. The article could cover public opinion toward the subject in the 50s, when homosexuals were conflated with child molestors, to the outcry over child pornography and abuse in the late 70s and early 80s, to the allegations of satanic ritual abuse and the high-profile crimes that have encouraged the passage of sex offender laws, etc. in the recent past. Then a few sections could describe the beliefs and activities of some modern anti-sexual abuse advocates.

In my opinion, the "anti" article has the potential to become a useful overview of the subject and could be just as comprehensive as the "pro" article. But to restrict it simply to covering anti-pro pedophile activism is ridiculous. Mike D78 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: I wonder where hypocritical morals will lead us next. As Alejandro Jodorowsky asserts in the commentary for Fando y Lis, "We live in a paedophile society". Behemoth 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and/or Start Over While I do believe this article has some scholarly and encyclopedic value, the article is hopelessly flawed at this point and should be rewritten in its entirety, this isn't to say though that I believe we should throw out all the old sources -- Gudeldar 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Voting keep on this article is not the same as endorsing pedophilia. DGG makes a good point. I have to agree. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per BlueBoy96 and MikeD78, and this is a well-written, informational article about a notable subject. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with MikeD78 and many others that wish to keep the article. SqueakyBox, if you wish to start articles on cannabis activism and peace activism, go right ahead...those articles are worth writing just like this one. Wild One 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep: But I think it definitely needs to checked for NPOV. Sion 11:52, 12 July 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.