Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (third nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn (closed by non-admin) RMHED 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Ashford

Lindsay Ashford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - Inactive pedophile activist from the internet. Half of the sources don't work, as he took his site down. Fringe notability on its own, as notable material already covered at Pro-pedophile activism. GrooV 12:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete only notable on the fringe, as per nom, this is a good afd call. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This has been discussed over and over again. This guy is a central figure both in the media and in a heated social debate about pedophilia. As such, the page on him is highly significant and notable. Whether in glory or disgrace, he might even end up a significant historical figure. In addition to this, due to strong POV objections to Ashford's views, such as those previously given for nominating this article for deletion, factual information about this person is very hard to come by, and the wikipedia article serves an important purpose. Please notice also that SqueakBox (previous commenter) was the proposer of the second delete nomination, which was turned down. Ravstein 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)User has made 5 edits, all today. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Although there are many sources on this page, most of them do not actually relate to Lindsay Ashford or mention him by name. The only area where he seems to have significant notability is the part about him posting pictures of Barack Obama's kids and having to remove them, and that was only a brief news story at best. Overall, his notability is extremely marginal, and so while I suggest keeping the article, I think it should be cut down to the bare minimum of what reliable sources say about the guy (probably, about one or two paragraphs). Terraxos 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think this article should be kept because it is able to meet the basic requirements from WP:BIO. However, this article needs some major cleaning up. The sources need to be fixed because the one of the sites listed as references closed down, making the statements unverifiable at the moment. Icestorm815 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Ashford and his website created quite a bit of a controversy in the media; his name returns about 488,000 hits on Google and he has been a major target of the anti-pedophile movement. Albert Wincentz 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Some sources don't work anymore because there are efforts out there trying to remove information about him, by petitioning Google to remove links to his site, for example. The fact that his site is down doesn't mean that we should take down our article on him. Notability is not temporary! If anything it just makes the little information we have on him that much more valuable. --Ospinad 20:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable individual in the history of pro-pedophile activism. Even though his activist site is shut down at the moment, he has already left his mark, and there's plenty of material to build a quality article. It's true that it's a bit harder now to source some of his ideas, seeing as linking to his site is no longer an option, but there are plenty of secondary sources that discuss the perspectives Ashford advocated. Since the topic of this article fulfills the notability requirements, and the content satisfies the biography standards, there's no reason to delete the article. If anything, the article should be kept and expanded, for there's much more that needs to be said about this person - information that was previously removed due to lack of proper referencing. ~ Homologeo 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unnotable criminal. Pol64 01:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I saw nothing to suggest that Ashford was a criminal, and would rather you not make those kind of comments on a webpage that is likely to be referenced by people who wish to establish his character. Indeed, his lack of a criminal record makes him all the less notable. GrooV 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment According to the nom Ashford has "fringe notability on his own, as notable material already covered at Pro-pedophile activism." I don't think that's really true because in the whole (80kb) article for Pro-pedophile activism the only time Lindsay's name is mentioned is in this sentence:

"Many other pedophile activists, amongst them David Riegel, Frans Gieles and Lindsay Ashford, actively campaign against the idea that children are unable to consent to sex."

I just think there is more that can be said about him than just this. --Ospinad 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if it survives afd perhaps we can merge it into PPA. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need since Lindsay Ashford has already met the requirements of notability to have his own article. --Ospinad 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That assertion is clearly disputed which is why we are here, and for the third time. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's being disputed by fewer and fewer people each time, lol. I think 3 should be the limit for the number of times an article can be nominated for deletion. --Ospinad 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Daniel Brandt took 14 deletion attempts before succeeding and the trolling GNAA organisation took a similar number. There are no limits at present re number of afds. I think we should wait before drawing any conclusions re this afd. Thanks, SqueakBox01:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I won't vote, but if he isn't notable then why the huge uproar over his article? Is Wikipedia short on server space or something? -HolokittyNX 03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep there is more than enough continuing news coverage to show notability. The reason for nomination seems a little peculiar--If he was notable while his site was up he still is now. Notability is permanent DGG (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• WITHDRAWN. I see no possibility of passing this vote any more. And although there are good reasons for deleting this material, I would not like to be seen as in league with either Pol64 or his reasoning. Sorry for the inconvenience. GrooV 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I may disagree with you on some things in regards to this article, I agree that the stance Pol64 is taking is overboard and not helpful to the project. Also, considering that you have withdrawn your nomination of this article for deletion, what happens now? Do we need an admin to bring this process to closure? Although, I think it would still make sense to complete this process as usual, so that all the arguments on both sides can be voiced - this information can then be used to improve the article. ~ Homologeo 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Meh. By the look of other votes, an admin will come along, declare nomination withdrawn and archive it. The whole mood around here seems to be one of cynical politics, policy violation, gross logical incompetence and rampant psychological projection, especially with reference to unnamed others. I might feel better about this tomorrow, but with the failure to act on Pol64 (see AN), the message is clear; no one is brave enough to act on those whose excesses are commonly seen as noble or valiant. I guess it's because of the pressure from Perverted-Justice (cso.com). GrooV 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.