This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pol64 (talk | contribs) at 01:07, 11 November 2007 (delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:07, 11 November 2007 by Pol64 (talk | contribs) (delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Lindsay Ashford
AfDs for this article:- Lindsay Ashford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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 petition 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)