Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (activist)


 * 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. Sources inadequate for establishing notability. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Ashford (activist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was created by who was lated banned by arbcom for "Activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia". That's no a reason to delete, but it is a reason to examine.

It concerns a pro-pedophile activist.

Now, being an apologist for pedophilia isn't a reason to delete.
 * But, being an entirely unnotable apologist for pedophila certainly is.

So, lets look at the claims to notability here:
 * He's been interviewed on a very late-night TV show on BBC2. Big deal. Thousands of weirdos get interviewed on TV, and BBC2 latenight is the graveyard of British TV (no one watches it)
 * He ran a website which was investigated by the policy. Yup, I should hope they investiage all of these - but no charges.
 * He got a takedown from Barak Obama's lawyers during the US election campaign for making creepy remarks about his young daughters. Well, yes, I wonder how many hundreds of such notices the thousands of lawyers working for Presidential candidates issue.

Now, yes, (per WP:IDONTLIKE, and WP:NOTCENSORED) being a creepy pervert it isn't a reason to delete stuff, but it isn't a reason for us to keep giving this obscure nut publicity either.Scott Mac (Doc) 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable, plain and simple. Best case, it's WP:BLP1E and still needs to go. Just kill it with fire already - A l is o n  ❤ 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N, WP:V. A passing mention in a very small news story or late-nite TV interview is not sufficient for an article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails notability. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see anything notable or even particularly interesting.Legitimus (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't think it should be deleted. It has gone through the AfD and survived twice. This guy has had some media exposure and is known for not only interviews but other controversies. Whether we agree with his message is irrelevant, if he was notable before you stay notable. Even if he has had less media attention lately. If we delete this article then we might as well delete the NAMBLA article too since despite their media attention in the past, they don't get much attention now. And I'm sure lots of you would be against the deletion of that article. So yes very strong keep to this article. He probably is one of the most known pedophile activists as well. Zachorious (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is not temporary. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above editor may be felt to be less than neutral here. Consider these pov-pushing edits to the article  . I hardly think describing his as a childliving human rights activist is neutral.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well consensus can change, of course, and our standards for BLP inclusion have moved on from where they were three years ago when the last AfD was held, no? - A l is o n  ❤ 02:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the nominator's considerations. The creator of the article doesn't matter. The crimes for which the subject is known don't matter. (We have articles on traitors, murderers, pornographers, politicians, and all sorts of other disreputable people.) And it is not Wikipedia's job to have articles on dangerous people for the purpose of warning possible victims. All that really matters are the notability standards. I think this guy is of marginal notability. The fact that he seeks attention means that, in my opinion, we should discount his notability a notch, which reduces his notability well below the minimum. If he becomes more notorious in the future (god forbid) we can always write a new article. In the meantime, delete it.    Will Beback    talk    04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to the impression given by the nomination, the article actually includes a considerable number of news sources over the course of several years that indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alison Jacina (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established for this apparently odious little person.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Marginal notability and perennial WP:BLP concerns. The article is not linked from anywhere useful on Wikipedia, so deleting it is not a real loss of context for any other article. Pcap ping  14:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The news articles linked in both the references and external links sections have a large amount of coverage of his website (which most commenters above haven't mentioned, surprisingly), but not of Ashford himself. Normally I'd say merge to an article on his website per BLP1E, but since they all handily avoid mentioning it by name that might be tough... Therefore, I'm inclined to go for weak keep (Changed, see below) since the material definitely seems notable enough to be included somewhere. Wouldn't object to a rename if the name of his site can be found. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me get this right. You want us to keep a biography because there's sources about a website, but becasue we can't know the name of the website, we dump the material in a BLP? If the website is so unverifiable, sketchy and not-notable that we can't write an article on it, that's hardly reason to keep a BLP is it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when I wrote the above I didn't think the website was unverifiable, sketchy or non-notable; just that we don't know it's name. That makes it hard to know what title to use for the article - Lindsay Ashford's website? Also to be clear I wouldn't advocate therefore dumping the material in a BLP of someone I thought was totally non-notable. I think Ashford is notable at about the BLP1E level which makes it "usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name" (emphasis added), but given the difficulty in this case leaving it in his article seemed a reasonable second-best.
 * However, since I wrote that it's occurred to me that several of the articles are sufficiently vague with details that we can't actually verify they're talking about the same website. I'll have to have another look and reassess my position. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As promised I've looked over the sources again. My reading comprehension must be a little rusty, because the name of the website is mentioned in the article and two of the sources! To my mind these four sources convey notability on the website per the GNG, so my new opinion is rename to Puellula and remove biographical sections on Ashford. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As per other comments. Non notable self publicising paedophile who apparently doesn't even have the website any more that created his barely audible blip of non news for a brief instance on the world. Hasn't created anything, hasn't done anything, his only mark left on the world being a slight passing odour. Amentet (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article states, "Ashford has stated in an interview that he is attracted to girls aged between seven and eleven years old. He does not believe that sexual intercourse is a humane practice for girls of this age, and insists that intercourse should be abstained until a girl reaches puberty, though he supports physical intimacy with young girls."


 * If this guy is truly a pedophile, one who has significant trouble fighting his sexual urges, I sincerely doubt that he would wait until a girl has reached puberty before engaging her in sexual intercourse. As a pedophile, he should be significantly "turned off" by the idea of sexually engaging a girl whose body resembles an adult woman's either somewhat or completely. But by his comments, I am confused about whether he is a pedophile or a hebephile (or a combination of both). Sounds like he is as well, and all he knows is that he has a sexual preference for girls who very much look child-like. Either way, he does not seem that notable. I admit that my "delete vote" on this matter would be biased, because I do not like pedophile activists having Wikipedia articles, or any articles on the Internet claiming that children as young as 7 are able to have a mature romantic or sexual relationship with an adult and that the children are not harmed by it. But this guy may be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia has gotten stricter with their policies, but this article did survive two previous AfDs. I leave this decision up to others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are sufficient sources for notability and for the facts.   Some of the comments above are wholly irrelevant. Anyway,  NOT CENSORED, which is a concept that some people here keep trying to limit.    DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single contributor here has addressed the notability question, and while they have taken a different view from you, I see no votes based on a desire to censor. I specifically disavowed such in my nomination. Please don't attribute motives to people in an attempt to undermine their votes. Indeed one might as easily say that people have voted to keep this article because he's an advocate of an unpopular stance and they wish to demonstrate their commitment to WP:NOTCENSORED by keeping him, regardless of notability. So let's stop poisoning the well and discuss notability. That you and I take different stances on what's notable isn't surprising, so let's see who convinced the consensus and not make this about motives, wiki-liberalism and other irrelevances. "a concept that some people here keep trying to limit" is an assumption of bad faith and plainly ad hominem arguement.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that if DGG (someone whose work I greatly appreciate around here) was referring to part of my comments as "wholly irrelevant," I was simply stating what was on my mind at that exact moment. Correct terminology regarding what is and what is not pedophilia is relevant. I was trying to figure out just who this guy is -- why he has conflicting definitions of pedophilia. He is a pedophile, but prefers to wait until a girl has reached puberty before engaging in sexual intercourse with her? What???? Either he is lying about that part in order to seem "more respectable," he is a bit of a hebephile as well, or he is confused about what pedophilia actually is. I was trying to assess just why this article should exist. That included not only the sources in this article, but how this guy is defined as a pedophile activist. I did not let my bias take over and "vote" delete simply because I do not like this article existing. On Wikipedia, I never "vote" solely on bias. I was simply noting that if I were to "vote" delete on this matter, my "vote" would be partially biased. We are all often partially biased in AfD debates, and I admitted my bias. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * just my feeling that an AfD is not the place for general discussion of the subject field the person works in. I do not think you are biased, & I apologize if it sounded that way. But Scott, yes I do tend to be more willing to accept borderline sources for subjects in taboo fields, to counteract the systematic bias that arises because conventional reputable sources usually do censor themselves and avoid discussing them if they can. I recognize the great danger of classifying someone as being primarily notable in a taboo field they are not really active in based on marginal sources, but for self-acknowledged people like him, I see no BLP problem of that sort.    DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've already entered a "delete" recommendation based on non-notability. An additional problem with this article is that the title is original research. None of the (few) references in the article describe him as an activist. Following the links shows that he is referred to as "self-proclaimed pedophile", "self-described pedophile", "self-admitted pedophile", and other similar terms. Google searches do not find any verifiable sources using the term "activist" to describe Ashford. If the article is kept, it has to be disambiguated, because there is an author by the same name, but "activist" can't be used, so what would we use instead?  Lindsay Ashford (pedophile website owner)? He's not notable for anything other than that, and even that's not notable.  That's the problem. If there were reliable sources discussing this person as an activist based on notable actions or events, that would be different. But there aren't any of those. That's the reason to delete. -- Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More problems found. I've been checking the sources in the article and found multiple dead-links and  some that do not verify to the text.  If anyone wants to see the specific links, check the article history and look at the ones I've removed.  Here is one example of a sources that do not support the text:
 * "Ashford dubbed the new page 'LGWatch' and acknowledged that he got the idea from another pro-pedophile activist,footnote 3 Jack McClellan, who ran a similar site in Washington and later in California.footnote 4"
 * Neither of those news articles mentions Lindsay Ashford. One of them is about the website, but does not identify it as being owned by Ashford, his name is not in the article.  The other article is about Jack McClellan, not Ashford.  The Wikipedia article on McClellan has been previously deleted for similar reasons of non-notability.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, with fire, brimstone, and a healthy dose of SALT any remnant of this article from Wikipedia. And as there is significant risk that the article will simply be recreated, any article that could potentially be a carrier of this non-notable nonsense should be protected as well. Scott  aka UnitAnode  05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, pr nom. Please!Guestworker (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject is not likeable, but for sure it is notable. There are lots of news sources and a book with reasonable coverage. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Book coverage may indeed indicate some level of WP:NTEMP. But I still think that not a lot encyclopedic material is lost here. Compare with Articles for deletion/George Kayatta, who also got plenty of press, and similar (negative) coverage in one book. Pcap ping  15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An unfortunate deletion it was the one you cite, if there were plenty of press and book coverage. You say "not a lot encyclopedic material is lost here". Well, given the size of Wikipedia, I'd say that for every article we delete, we do not lose "a lot". However we're not here to throw stuff in the trashbin just because "it's not a lot". Oceans are made of drops of water. Remove it drop by drop, and all you remain with is desert. That's why we have WP:PRESERVE. Nominator claimed the subject is not notable. Now, the subject has been covered by multiple WP:RS, and as such it meets WP:GNG, so nom motivation is refuted. What reasons are there remaining to delete the article, therefore? -- Cycl o pia talk  16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment How is news sources lot's of news sources? It's a couple of minor story's about him in relation to a no longer existent website and the rest of the timeline is just trivial web indexing services pointing to the same thing over and over again, using the same paragraph ad infinitum. As far as book with reasonable coverage goes, in a book that is 3,133,294 rated in books on Amazon he's mentioned three times across four pages of the book, in context of the same no longer existent website. I think those citations actualy make the case for him not being notable.Amentet (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep An unpleasant man, yes. But there is plenty of media coverage for this person to meet WP:RS needs, but the article is overlong and the claims without verification should either be sourced or cut. Warrah (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, pointing at google numbers does not show there are reliable sources. Verious people above have examined them and found them to be useless. Now, you are entitled to disagree, but you need to be more precise. Your link proves nothing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither does your attempt to belittle it (or, for that matter, almost everyone who disagrees with you). No one is pointing at "numbers" - the link points out that the subject was the center of specific coverage in major media including FOX News, the Deseret News, Macleans and ABC News. However, it appears that you are on a crusade to have this article removed, and your repeated badgering of those who support the article's inclusion is noted. Warrah (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he is just trying to prove a point. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm testing to see if wikipedia is up for deleting a non-notable article, or whether it's delight in ideological libertarianism will mean it ignores its own notability standards and keeps it regardless.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources given show that he is a notable, if not likeable, character. The article could be stubbified to remove contentious claims about pedophilia, but who he says he is and the attention he has recieved has been well-documented. Remember we are not a censored encyclopedia and IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. I also strongly protest these secret ArbCom bannings that tend to appear whenever a sexually-sensitive POV pusher comes to light.  Let dispute resolution be taken care of through normal means open for all to see instead of these smoke-filled-room decisions taken without any community input, lest it not be seen that ArbCom is pushing its own (counter) point of view in the matter. This all smells like whitewashing to me.  On the other hand, if the subject ever states that he wishes this article to be deleted, I would be all for it due to its extremely contentious nature, but until that happens I don't think the information present is causing any BLP issues due to the material available for citations.  Them  From  Space  00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for pete's sake, what an irrelevant argument. No one has cited BLP concerns here and no one is trying to censor anything. The debate is a) is he notable? b) are there sufficient reliable sources?. Can you say why he's notable, and what sources you consider to be reliable here. Frankly, this smacks of censorship in reverse - "we'll keep this non-notable article to show we're liberal". Let's address the sources and notability issues and ignore the rest. No vote to delete here has been based on censorship or on IDONTLIKEIT.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there were BLP concerns in the article. It said he himself was abused when he was 4 with a pretty tag for WP:PRESERVE purposes, I guess. It's general knowledge that people abused in their youth are more likely to have troubles like this guy, but the details surely need a solid source. Pcap  ping  00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there are BLP concerns, but no one has argued that's a reason to delete this, so they are largely irrelevant.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * delete per what alison said above. Viridae Talk 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to correct a mistake in the intro of this AfD re BBC2's Am I Normal? (Monday, 9.00pm). I watch BBC2 for these kind of programmes (BBC2 is more cultured than BBC1) and around 9pm on BBc2 consistently contains the highest quality of British TV (and by definition, all television) - not the "graveyard shift that no one watches"! Having said that, I'm not sure it makes the guy notable (I didn't see any of this 4 part series, but it looked like a good one). I don't personally want to go further, as I don't really have the constitution to research him right now. It's a fine line, but it's distasteful images and 'Good' articles that are deliberately watered down so not to cause edit wars that piss me off, more than the actual article existence of borderline BLP's. There are a million POV-based lists, forks and event articles on Wkipedia that do more damage than things like this imo. If he properly featured on Am I normal (rather than just mentioned), and has other notable sources, then it may as well be a keep. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if people can produce "notable sources" then it might well be a keep. So far, not so much. "Dangerous" was not a reason for nomination.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how is being interviewed by BBC2 different than being interviewed by a newspaper? They're both secondary sources coverage. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not. But being interviewed by a newspaper does not confer notability. It may simply show that you're interesting as one of a class of odd people. That's human interest stories for you. There's a naked bungee jumper interviewed in my newspaper this morning...--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Being interviewed and otherwise covered by sources several times does confer notability. If the naked bungee jumper is interviewed by several sources, he/she becomes notable by definition. Notable does not mean unique. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but there we have it. In any case he was NOT interviewed several times.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuke from orbit I'm stunned this survived three prior AFD's, in fact, I believe by today's standards related to BLP's the first one would have been closed as delete, though the latter two were clearer.  The stuff relating to Obama would go for the notability of his website, not himself; even counting the BBC I'm not seeing the significant coverage of the person to keep this (at-best) marginal BLP.  (And, I don't like it.  No one that doesn't agree with him would like this fellow. (Just acknowledging my biases)). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2010 (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.