Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-pedophile activism

Pro-pedophile activism

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blueboy 96 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Speedy keep per Mike D78 --ざくら木 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]