Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (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. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ashford[edit]

Non notable character who started his own autobiography, SqueakBox 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —E ddie 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thoroughly non notable, fails WP:N, WP:COI.--Sandahl 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable. --MichaelLinnear 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many reliable news sources, including interviews, documenting his activities and in many different languages. There is also a big campaign to get his website shut down. Clearly, this article is receiving attack because of what he is doing. Christopher Connor 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After looking at the article and Googling him, I've concluded that disgust with his cause is affecting this discussion. WP:NOTCENSORED. COI is an editing guideline, not a reason to delete in and of itself, and the article has had other editors. His notoriety also seems to have increased since the last AfD, when it was more iffy. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This guy has been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. He has rather outspoken and inflammatory views, and this has attracted a good deal of media attention. This sounds like the very definition of notability to me. JulesH 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a non-notable person, unless pedophilia activism per se is to be considered ground for non-inclusion. __meco 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources for notability and for the facts. The article should probably be reduced a little. DGG 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Whether editors and readers agree or disagree with Lindsay Ashford's viewpoints, this individual is definitely notable. Not only is he a leading force in modern pedophile activism, he has also been featured in many articles and several news programs. All the while, the article, as it currently stands, does need some editing to make it more NPOV, because criticism takes up a disproportionate amount of space in comparison to the discussion of the actual perspectives Ashford promotes. If anything, the article should be expanded, but definitely not deleted. Thus, unless better evidence is presented for deleting this article, I suggest that we keep it. Homologeo 08:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.