Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic couples (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Peter, 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research)