Deletion of BoyChat

Comment: I agree that is pretty obvious that pedos have combined forces to prove this article (they say so on the talk page) and topic meets  and  but I don't appreciate the accusation that anyone arguing for this article or adding references to this article must be a pedo. The fact is they have already been given "legitimacy" by the news media and various govt research groups. I'm just annoyed that you're suggesting this rather than putting your foot down and pointing out that a majority of  edits on behalf of pedos are not  and only represent a minority opinion. If you want to be a good admin you should go through and apply  to the article and the edits which people suggest they revert for . The first thing to be done is make sure all the pedo language is inline with the wikipedia pedo watch group that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV)

Comment: per |notability, |verifiability, |reliable independent sources and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: No evidence that this had been ''the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself'' or that it meets any of the other criteria of . Providing links to the site itself is not the same as |citing |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:CITE||WP:RS)

Comment: per |notability, |verifiability, |lack of reliable independent sources and . Most of the "references and external links" relate to or belong to the site itself, and much of the information in the article is sourced directly from the site. Numerous other web forums, even ones that have made the news, have failed these parameters and been deleted in the past. The "external links" section generally fails |neutral point of view
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:WEB||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I've added news paper article links to the article which show that journalists have been talking about BoyChat since 1998. With all the articles posted (4 or more at the time of this comment) this article easily meets , there needs to be some integration to be truly verifiable but the shear number of media mentions allows the article to meet . Since  and  are met via '''multiple''' real-world '''non-trivial''' publications which are secondary sources this article meets . The article still needs a lot of a work and seems to skirt around the issue that all the reliable sources say that BoyChat is chat for pedophiles. This article seems to avoid stating verifiable facts about the website. Then on a non-policy note I'd like to say that having an article on BoyChat on Wikipedia allows people to read about it without actually going there. Hopefully wikipedia can give people unbiased information (they are pedophiles) about BoyChat rather than users having to interpret their FAQ. In Summary '''please re-read the article, please view ALL of the references and external links''', you'll the article passes ,  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:WEB||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:WEB)