Deletion of Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film

Comment: as well.  I've had issues about this article since I first saw it linked to The Cider House Rules.  It ''does'' read like a college essay, and the subject seems to be far too broad to be truly encyclopedic, and although it seems to be referenced, I have problems with the subjectivity of the subject matter, as I voiced on the talk page a while back.  Who is to say what relationships are positive?  Why is this academic?  IS it academic?  It may be construed as irrelevant and .  The creator of the article obviously is very passionate about this subject (and others: see Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) and other associated articles), but, you know.  Squick
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: At the risk of seeming , I'm inclined to agree with nom. It's one of "those" articles where it has no glaring faults, but walks a fine line between relevance and irrelevance, while being neither abjectly harmful nor obviously useful...ultimately though, I think the higher standard should prevail. Maybe the user would care to userspace it. Bullzeye
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: A "a rhetorical strategy to show how many types of such friendships are acceptable" is not a encyclopedic article on a topic, it's an original research essay topic. Wikipedia is a compilation of what other reliable sources say, and there are no reliable sources expressly and solely dealing with "positive relationships between men and boys in literature and film". There are sources dealing with both components separately, but none |synthesizing the two. That's an original research subject, plain and simple
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Unfortunately, articles with a specific point of view to counterpoint another point of view are called #POV forks|POV forks, and are expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: First off, you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is not here to prove any point, or bring awareness to any factor of any issue. A  argument for keep is not acceptable under any circumstances. Your ranting assertion about how I am "oblivious to the revilement of males as inherent sexual predators against young boys that has developed in western societies during the post WW2 period, conspicuously fronted by radical feminism" is not a reason that this article should be kept per Wikipedia's policy. In fact, the idea that this article should stay to counteract any other idea is in direct opposition to Wikipedia's policy of |a neutral point of view. Articles do not, or at least should not, exist to prove any point. They exist to be an encyclopedic resource recounting the facts about a subject as |verified in |reliable, published sources. And as no reliable sources directly cover "positive relationships between men and boys in film and literature", the topic as covered in the article is |synthesis original research. By self-referential material, I meant the extensive phrases in which the article talks about itself. Phrases revolving around "This article is/is not..." are not encyclopedic content
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:SYN)

Comment: Tony, it's not just that the article is vaguely creepy. If it is so innocuous, why does the intro work so hard to say it's not sexual, and then go on to stumble about quite blatantly advocating for the importance of non-familial adult male friends for boys? It's that, just like your above comments about modern familial relations and male role models, you are creating |synthesis original research in compiling the article. Not only that, but the article is clearly a #POV forks|POV fork. The article's very topic of conversation, as  defined by it's title and introduction, are POV
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Perhaps a consensus could be expedited here if the nom could substantiate some of the things he claims about the article.  Why is it a #POV forks|POV fork and what POV is it a fork of?  Why does he feel it is "disturbing," "disingenuous," and "blatant?" Why can't we just rename it to something less flame-baity and keep it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Well-crafted, but nevertheless an effort to push POV through  and manipulation of the list qualification conditions.  From the article, "This article includes intimate relationships, but excludes relationships where there are any sexual feelings involved...."  This doesn't work.  Inclusion on this qualification would require reliable third-party sourcing that the relationship is positive ''and'' reliable third-party sourcing that the relationship is absent sexual connotation.  Good luck with that.  Likewise, the inclusion conditions exclude child sexual abuse "whether or not the relationship was seen to be positive" but the list includes other criminal relationships that are perceived as positive (''Martin's Day'', especially).  And, needless to say, almost all of the prose passages, while well-sources, are simply unrelated content in an effort to reinforce the subtle POV attempts.  Nothing in the "Research into adult/child relationships" mentions or relates to film and literature.  There is nothing to salvage here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: I was about to type delete, but I actually read the article.  It's ''not just'' listcruft or an essay, but |as of now it is very well sourced and written, useful for an encyclopedia.  Perhaps it needs re-naming.  I don't questions motives or agendas
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: I am not nominating this for deletion because it simply needs work. Several of the sections are decently written and most of it is properly sourced. The subject as a whole is not worthy of encyclopedic treatment in a separate article, as the article is patently original research in that it compiles sources and information to make a case for the importance of the subject. It's also a blatant #POV_forks|POV fork. It's a slightly impressive effort, but it's still fundamentally not neutral and never could be by it's very scope and definition
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)