The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 07:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This article, largely written by ArbCom banned User:Haiduc, may seem encyclopedic on a first pass, but in effect is little more than a content fork. Although the article has been edited since then to remove some of the most blatant POV pushing, it still has questionable value. Many of its sections attempt to summarize other articles, with {{ main}} or {{ see also}} tags. It's unclear to me why this intermediate article is needed when those summaries can be added to the main article on Pederasty, and detailed treatment is done sub-articles. This article also engages in direct interpretation a lot of historical primary sources. The lead also seems to attempt to draw its own conclusions with no clear references. Pcap ping 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 07:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This article, largely written by ArbCom banned User:Haiduc, may seem encyclopedic on a first pass, but in effect is little more than a content fork. Although the article has been edited since then to remove some of the most blatant POV pushing, it still has questionable value. Many of its sections attempt to summarize other articles, with {{ main}} or {{ see also}} tags. It's unclear to me why this intermediate article is needed when those summaries can be added to the main article on Pederasty, and detailed treatment is done sub-articles. This article also engages in direct interpretation a lot of historical primary sources. The lead also seems to attempt to draw its own conclusions with no clear references. Pcap ping 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply