Deletion of Historical pederastic couples (2nd nomination)

Comment: The article is mostly unreferenced, indeed it states clearly that reference is impossible in most cases (it says "In the pre-modern and modern West, their equivocal status has made pederastic relationships difficult to document" and talks of ''presumed'' pederastic couples).  This makes the whole subject a matter of speculation and presumption and thus an automatic violation of .  It might make an interesting PhD thesis or a book (if it were sufficiently well-written, but that is another problem, for it is not). It is entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia.  It is also vulnerable to the http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Persuasive%20Definition fallacy of definition that plagues articles of this sort.  Is it about pederastical relationships ''stricto sensu'', i.e. of a proven sexual nature, or is it about homoerotic or platonic relationships?  If pederastical relationships can be Platonic (i.e. non-sexual), why does the article say "At present pederastic relationships between unrelated individuals above the local age of consent are legal in most jurisdictions."  Fallacy of definition. And it also descends pretty quickly into the dreaded Wikipedian list - should be deleted for that alone.  And I agree with Guy and others that scholarship does NOT belong in Wikipedia.  Haiduc should take his interesting and thought-provoking speculations elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: There's a whiff of  going on here, as is there a whiff of . However, deleting lists on such subjects seems to be a bit of overzealous reaction to what could be a legitimate list. Clean it up and remove unsourced material. Also, I don't think speculation on the motives of others is going to be fruitful. Sure, it could be part of the PPA agenda, but that is not a reason to delete it. Also, we should not allow BLP to cover dead people. It is bad enough that the cancer that is  has spread to many parts of the encyclopedia without it going there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:BLP)