Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophile press

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. WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophile press

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sneaky pedophilia advocacy dressed up to look encyclopedic. This topic needs WP:TNT and does not meet WP:GNG.

It has 71.3% authorship by, and was started by, a user who mainly or only edited pedophilia articles and is now banned.

"Pedophile press" is not distinct from child pornography or pedophile advocacy. Google bears out that the topic is not notable. The list here has no encyclopedic value. It probably was created to promote these publications. Three links to pedophile groups still remain in the references, to Ipce, BoyWiki, and Alice Lovers.

Some material was recently removed. A careful reading of this material shows even more the pedophile advocacy motivation behind this article. It contained 3 more links to Ipce and 2 to another pedophile advocacy site called "exitinterview.biz", along with 2 others that looked suspicious but were dead links. It contained lines such as "Experts on pedophilia as Frits Bernard and Edward Brongersma..." (these men were actually pedophile activists) and "In 1987 was launched in Netherland Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, a scholarly journal which took a positive scholarly approach towards the study of pedophilia.[13] From the beginning, Paidika differentiated from other pedophilia-related publications. It had a professional layout and an impressive editorial board which reviewed the submissions to the journal. During its nine years of publication, Paidika managed to remain faithful to Bullough's (1990, 320) observation and publish a great number of well researched scholarly articles." (Did you catch how scholarly it was?)

Thanks to Uncle G for pointing this out to me. A related AfD is here. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator's reasoning. Also the creator of this and the other article mentioned was blocked in 2014, no reason listed anywhere. All of their edits seem to be related to this topic. Dream Focus 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously-deleted material, per the observation at the related AfD. And even if it weren't, the nomination makes a good case for deletion anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and maybe we can get an admin willing to WP:SNOW close this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and previous responders. Putting aside the controversial topic (which by the way Wikipedia is not censored), it is a full list of non notable publications. Ajf773 (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale, as at the other discussion, is that these specific edit histories plagiarising word-for-word promotional content from "BoyWiki" are entirely undesirable, and should be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is unclear that most of these publications are anywhere near notable enough to merit inclusion in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the entries are notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.