Deletion of Pederasty in ancient Greece

Comment: and prune extensively according to ,   and .    Of course, this is AfD, not Article-Cleanup, so the pruning will have to be done at the article and its talk page. However it is useful to have context for keeping the article - it is the topic that is notable, not the content. The page is overrun with unsourced speculation and idealized interpretations and misinterpretations of ancient sources.   All unsourced or questionably-sourced information should  be removed, even if that leaves a very short page.  Short and verified is a good start for a reboot that can become a strong article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: the issue of problems with/misrepresentation of sources means the page and issues must be fixed - not deleted.  Controversy, original research and misrepresentation of sources are irrelevant for purposes of establishing whether it passes the guidelines on |notability, which this article clearly does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is a notable topic, and |AFD is not cleanup. In addition, the nominator seems unfamiliar with the topic; much of what he deleted is correct info, though not cited to secondary sources. If the nominator were familiar with the topic, s/he would have been able to recognize that some of what he's deleted is uncontroversial. Indeed, anyone with even a casual interest in this topic should have known that Socrates advocated a chaste form of the ''erastes''--''eromenos'' relationship. Tagging would have been better than wholesale deletion in this case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)