Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom O'Carroll (2nd 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 keep. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Tom O'Carroll
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failing GNG aside of "prominent pedophile"-type stories. "Occupation" listed as "pedophilia advocate." Potential BLP issues galore. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per sources, per coverage. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - See also Articles for deletion/Tom O'Carroll. Nominated five years ago and kept.  As an AFC reviewer, I frequently note that an article has previously been deleted, and this creates a presumption at AFC against accepting it.  The opposite is true.  Has anything changed to warrant deletion now?  If so, what?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to be careful, Google shows another Tom O'Carroll, a folk musician, but the discussion does appear to be correctly focused on this Tom O'Carroll, the pedophilia advocate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is the argument for deletion any stronger than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether anyone likes it or not, O'Carroll happens to be a well-known/notorious figure, especially in the United Kingdom, as witness the sources already in the article. In addition to those sources, O'Carroll is discussed in a number of academic books - just looking through those on my shelves, I found significant discussions of O'Carroll in Jeffrey Weeks's Sexuality and Its Discontents and Sheila Jeffreys's Anticlimax. There will be more I'm not aware of. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep unless an answer to my above questions persuades me that there is a policy-based reason for deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG in my opinion. A prominent pedophile is still prominent, unfortunately. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  00:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly his work with PIE had a significant impact, most notably its astonishing affiliation with the NCCL in the 1970s. PIE succeeded in gaining support from figures such as Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt at the NCCL, and when this fact later emerged in 2014 it was a major political scandal. Passes GNG without a doubt, the fact that his activities are so distasteful has no real impact on this (and if anything they increase notability given his links to major political figures) --Shakehandsman (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Emily Khine (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Anotherultimatename (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the article on this appalling man. Simply not seeing justification for deletion at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2018 (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.