Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predator Poachers

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. ✗plicit 12:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Predator Poachers[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ATTACK page created by a now-blocked editor who was blocked for pushing a pro-pedophilia POV. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and Texas. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There appear to be enough hits in Gnews. The New Yorker is a solid reference, most are details of the subsequent arrests made after their "investigations" I suppose you'd call them. Would prefer one or more solid references. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker story only gives them a passing mention: The videos, which were made by groups like Dads Against Predators, the Predator Catchers Alliance, or the Alabama Predator Poachers... (and that might be a different group entirely, since Rosen is from Houston, Texas). It could be a reference for the general topic of vigilante justice against child molesters, but I don't think it contributes to the notability of Predator Poachers specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, I read it and got a different impression. To be honest, I'm not fussed if we keep the article or not. That was my best reference for "keep"ing it , the rest didn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The topic of this article is well-sourced, and has obvious notability. These multiple AfDs appear to be part of a systematic attack and opinion canvassing operation against the creator of the Minor-attracted person article, which unambiguously referred to the topic (acknowledging the considerable controversy surrounding it) rather than mobilizing it. Wikipedia is not censored, and is driven by notability and mentions of a topic in reliable sources.

~~I'd suggest that some admin further up has a good look into what is happening at certain bulletin boards, and whether it violates existing policy. --86Sedan 09:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)~~ - (pro-pedophilia account blocked). ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, they're against anti-semetism but for this particular thing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good to examine these articles in the light of these events, but I would rate this one a ~~Keep~~, as it looks like there's enough for notability (and I'm not seeing the same synthesis problems as with some others). I agree with the neutrality tag, but I think that could be addressed by editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, after thinking about what other people have said, I'm going to shift to Weak Delete as Joe suggests below. And ValarianB's send-to-draft suggestion if anyone wants to take it on sounds good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree that this is essentially an attack page targeting the group's founder. And read in light of the creator's other edits, it's pretty obvious what motivated it. That said, it does cite a decent number of reliable sources, and most of them do indeed criticise the founder. So this is basically a vote for deletion per WP:TNT; I'm not sure if it's possible to write a policy-compliant article about the group, but I am sure that this isn't it. However, I'll happily change my vote if someone can rewrite it. – Joe (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now but Send-to-Draft if someone wants to take it on. there appears to be a possible semblance of an article here, but if would have to get the proverbial WP:TNT and start over, as this is an obvious attack page. ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that there is/was a now-blocked editor canvassing for keep votes in this discussion via email. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hatchet job, unless someone volunteers to redo it from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The article is a coatrack existing solely as a place to attack a person associated with the group. If someone can find secondary sources talking about the group and its effects on society, please write a new article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT and WP:DENY apply Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete Seems more like an attack page directed towards a person in the group. Equine-man (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an attack page, going into needless details. Also, concerning if it was indeed created by a pervert as alleged above (though, can't confirm right now)...NyMetsForever (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Article is a hatchet job. Dawnbails (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2023 (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.