Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedo-baiting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete. It is important to note that the sole source for this article does not use the term that is the article's title. The argument that this article comprises WP:OR thus has great empirical support. To Catch A Predator, notable here in the US, clearly shows that this practice exists, but (as an article describing it), this content fails WP:OR. Xoloz 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pedo-baiting
1. Fails notability. More accurate material can be found @ Anti-pedophile activism.
2. Poorly written. Confuses pedophiles (persons attracted to prepubescent youth) with those who seek to find teens online for erotic purposes.
3. Seems to have been created to promote a deleted website called pedobaiting.com (ref now removed).
4. Just redirect it to Anti-pedophile activism. ●Farenhorst 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (do I need to say?) ●Farenhorst 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, you don't. Nomination is automatically considered a vote for deletion unless you specifically say you're a neutral nominator. deranged bulbasaur 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete Per nom. Needless to say, the title is rediculous. Tomj 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, then redirect to Anti-pedophile activism, per number four above. There's not much worth merging into the redirect target. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a neologism and original research, particularly the part about blackmailing pedophiles. --Farix (Talk) 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge any relevant material into anti-pedophile activism and redirect the page there, SqueakBox 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or possibly merge any sourcable content to somewhere appropriate; certainly doesn't deserve its own article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Anti-pedophile activism per SqueakBox spazure (contribs) 08:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect per SqeakBox Ospinad 14:46, 24 August 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.
