Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. User:Mindspillage was actually the one who passed the judgment, but did not close the debate, so it is now done. For the record there were 21 to delete and 11 to keep, one delete vote short of a two thirds majority. Sjakkalle 13:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ashford

This trash is non-notable and disgusting. DELETE! Stancel 00:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote KEEP! This man is so brave to put himself in a position of being burned at the stake for his beliefs, and his position that all humans - even pedophiles - have basic human rights. Anyone voting to delete this page is against liberty. - Kaliko Kat (By the way, I have an account, kalikokat, but I do not know how to post replies here.) By the way, I had this account for a half a month before posting this vote here, so it is not a sock puppet vote.
  • Whether the article is notable or not, "disgusting" is not a criteria for removing something from Wikipedia. I'm going to abstain for now. --FCYTravis 01:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whatever you think of Ashford and his "self-identified pedophilia", you can't get away from the fact that he's a well-known individual. That fact that he disgusts most people actually adds to notability. ---Isaac R 01:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgusting-ness is not a deletion criteria. It's not our place as editors to judge this fellow's activities or interests. We have articles on the Holocaust and plenty of other unpleasant subjects. However, it seems to me that the subject and author user:Zanthalon are the same person, which makes this vanity. Delete and if the notability is genuine, let someone else write the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Delete. "Disgusting" is not a valid criterion for deletion. I only get ~200 unique Google hits for "lindsay ashford", not all relevant, some of which being Wikipedia links, so I'm not convinced of the subject's notability. However, I'm not sure I want to continue researching this subject, so I will abstain for now. Not notable, self-promotion. Change vote. android↔talk 21:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikispam. But agree that disgust etc is not a valid criterion for deletion; Wikipedia is not censored. So if the article is rewritten to establish notability, I'll change my vote. Andrewa 02:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just by judging the current revision and the top 5 search page results for "Lindsay Ashford," the article doesn't really establish notability. Getting many results for a British author [1] than the pedophile. --Chill Pill Bill 03:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the delete votes; maybe new information could convince me of sufficient notability per the abstain votes, but it's been well edited and is about a Wikipedian so I wouldn't expect much. Samaritan 04:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article on current subject but I would vote to keep an article on the British author identified by Chill Pill Bill. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disgusting or not, he's not notable. --Angr/comhrá 09:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. The guy may be disgusting, but he's known and therefore relatively notable, though I don't go much on the quality of the article itself - very biased and badly written. Jamyskis 12:43, 12 May 2005 (GMT)
    • But is he known? Not much that I can see. Just 776 web hits for lindsay-ashford, many or most of which seem to be for the British female author of that name Chill Pill Bill mentioned. He was interviewed in a local newspaper in New Jersey, not really for anything he did uniquely but as an example of a pedophile. It identified him as an unemployed business consultant. The other claim to being known is his website, relatively low-Alexa especially given, I imagine, the subject. :l Samaritan 14:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when I tried a search I mostly got links to the British woman crime writer of the same name, which suggests this person is not notable. A notorious paedophile should be included. PatGallacher 14:15, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Delete — Doesn't appear to be a notable person. — RJH 15:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - primarily because he's not a notable person. Secondly because I don't feel that W/P should contribute to his attempts to become famous. Oliver Keenan 21:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable - but if he was? Is it morally permissible to risk facillitating the networking of such people - and hide behind an accademic NPOV policy? "It's not our place as editors to judge this fellow's activities" - perhaps not, but I'm afraid then I'd have to be a father first and an editor second. --Doc Glasgow 21:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, soap-boxish, not notable, and blatant self promotion via User:Zanthalon. Yeah, as an obvious aside, it's pretty damned sick, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 19:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hedley 16:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Abstain because theres 700+ google results for "Lindsay Ashford", however as CryptoDerk points out below theres only 37 unique websites for a reasonable search term. I agree with IRC discussion that there is voting here simply on disagreement with the subject. Hedley 17:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps rewrite googling the name seems to establish notoriety. The subject could be quite interesting if made properly NPOV, the article appears to be heading in that general direction (it's not a complete POV soapbox). I am disappointed of the votes by wikipedians here.... Will you be putting Adolf Hitler up for VFD next? --Gmaxwell 16:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Abstain It's not our job to be a moral judge for the world. We simply need to establish facts. Inclusion on wikipedia is in no way an endorsement. A general look around seems to establish noteriety, and also linked to by a number of wiki articles. I am uncertain about notability, once we remove the mists of moral anger...--Fangz 16:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Lindsay Ashford" pedophile -wikipedia -encyclopedia returns 37 unique websites. CryptoDerk 17:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep why does people want to delete an article about subjects they are uncomfortably with? The world won't change if you just ignore its revolting parts. -- Wegge 17:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's disgusting, but there appears to be enough verifiable information about him for an NPOV article. Icky isn't grounds for deletion. Jon the Geek 17:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason given for deletion. Grue 17:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our job is to write an encyclopedia, not pass moral judgement. --Carnildo 03:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 17:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like he's notable enough, though I'd rather he wasn't... -Cookiemobsta 21:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable notability. El_C 21:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to likely self-promotion and non-notability. If a significant part of your claim to fame is a website, you should be able to do far better than CryptoDerk's Google count. Isomorphic 22:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable--Heathcliff 04:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Lindsay Ashford is very notable--among girllovers. He returns few google hits, but in this case the google test is inaccurate; two pages define virtually half his "encyclopedic" importance. The first is his own site, puellula: a celebration of the splendor of little girls (and its central section The Human Face of Pedophilia). This page was the first of its kind, and remains the most important by far. It made him the first girllover to leverage the power of the internet to spread the moral girllove movement. The second is the online hub of the online English-speaking girllove world, Girl Chat, on which he was a former moderator and frequent contributor (under the psudeonym Amator Puellularum). The online girllove community is, by necessity, small, tight-knit, and heavily defended. There are only half a dozen serious English pro-girllove sites on the internet, and for obvious reasons they have few outside linkers to boost their google ratings. In addition, much of the girllove community's ineractions are invisible to google, consisting of emails, etc. To delete this article would be an act of bigotry or ignorance, and I hope I've removed any chance of the latter. 24.17.5.50 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So being important to a small, tightnit group of pedophiles makes someone notable?--Heathcliff 02:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Being (very) notable to a "small, tight[k]nit group" which is itself very notable gives him encyclopedic importance. Compare David Thorstad from NAMBLA. (I'll link Childlove here for general reference.)
I really don't think that's what it means to be notable. I'm not suggesting a person has to be known all over the world, but if he's only signifincant within a small movement like "childlove" then perhaps he warrants a mention on that page, but not his own article.--Heathcliff 02:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this page has been visited by 1.05 out of a million users on the internet ([2]). I'm really not interested in an article on a guy whose page hits are literally one out of a million. →Iñgōlemo← talk 23:14, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Abstain from processing. I was about to process this, but we have to look at consensus, not mere numbers. I count 20 delete votes plus nominator, eight keep votes, and four abstentions. Disgusting is not a criteria for deletion, far from it - however, being disgusting does not make you notable by default. Also, even if his website is notable - which has not been shown - that does not make the creator of the website notable. If the notability of the subject is only due to his pedophilia, and if his website is not similarly notable, then delete is the only option. However, he may be notable within the movement - and since we have articles on the movement, then the movement is sufficiently notable. I do not know, and the vote was not unanimous, though it was obviously tilted towards delete. So I abstain from picking an outcome to this debate. Too close to call between "err towards keep" and "consensus to delete". I suggest the debate be extended. --Golbez 18:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • If your concern is that editors are voting to delete out of disgust rather than for valid reasons, I think it is misplaced; IMHO, only two delete votes focus more on "disgusting" than "not notable" or "self-promotion" (that is, the original nominator's vote, and perhaps Doc Glasgow's). Also, I submit that, even though 24.17.5.50 suggests that the subject is notable, the subject is not verifiably so through the private emails, etc., that he cites. The Google Test, for what it's worth, points to "not notable," and I don't feel the lone newspaper interview is an indication of significant notability. The self-promotion aspect concerns me greatly, as well. I don't have a problem with an extended debate, but I think the correct course of action is pretty clear in this case. android↔talk 22:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it can be said there is not a consensus with the vote being 20 to 8 in favor of deletion. Also it is unfair in my opinon, to discount a vote because the voter expressed disgust. Yes it's possible that their opinion was tainted by their disgust, but it's also possible that their disgust did not influence their vote. Some people expressed disgust and voted "keep". Do we assume that their disgust influenced their vote? Can we therefore automatically assume that those who voted "delete" where influenced by their own disgust?--Heathcliff 02:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Gmaxwell. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 16:19 Z
  • Keep, he seems fairly well-known in child-love circles, and the notability test should be used against "Eileen Jacobson goes to River High and has a crush on Jason Fox...", not actual people of moderate note — (Sherurcij forgot to sign.)
    • Uh, what? Why should the standards be lowered for this particular subject? AиDя01DTALK 05:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lindsay_Ashford&oldid=1167439641"