Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism

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. JForget 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-pedophile activism

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

The article fails to meet WP criteria for inclusion. Reasons for deletion include the following:

Large portion of the text is about Perverted Justice and topics related to this organization (e.g., its affiliates and criticism of its tactics), all of which is discussed in a separate article.
Remaining information fails to meet the notability requirement.
Presence of original research and poor sourcing.
No lead section.
The problems with this article have been brought up on its Talk Page in the past (starting in September 2009), and no improvements have been made. Tags regarding OR, notability and lack of lead have been present since January 2010.

~ Homologeo (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I agree that the article is in a pretty poor state, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and an article on a notable topic (just see references for confirmation of significant coverage) shouldn't be deleted due to the state of the article. I suggest that you be bold and remove irrelevant information and OR, source the article properly, and write a lead. I'd be happy to assist you. Claritas § 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article is kept upon the completion of this AfD discussion, I could remove the Perverted Justice and related content, along with OR and other inappropriate info. However, I do not consider this topic notable enough and foresee almost nothing remaining from the current text, once the deletions take place. Thus, I don't think I'll be the one to resurrect this piece. If the article remains, anyone else interested in and knowledgeable in the subject matter is encouraged to contribute. As it stands right now, I really do not see the value of keeping this article within the project. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest that the problems raised by Homologeo, such as duplication with Perverted Justice, be addressed and then the deletion issue can be revisited. There is an anti-pedophile movement, and PJ is not the only anti-pedophile organization. Four-month old tags are relatively new and shouldn't be taken as a cause for deletion. Will Beback talk 17:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article is very bad shape, but the topic is indisputably notable. Powers ^T 18:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic itself is notable buth is a mess right now. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. True, Perverted Justice is rather/mostly targeting hebephiles instead of pedophiles, and they need to be largely cut from this article, but I have no doubt that this article can be fixed up in text, other sources, and accuracy. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or total rewrite. When you look at what pages link to it we find only 7 actual articles, these are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. All the other linked pages are user, talk, redirects or Wikipedia admin pages. Also it is hopelessly flawed and if kept it should be rewritten in its entirety. The vast majority of the article is about Perverted-Justice and should be on that page if it’s not already. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would a stubification be appropriate ? I can't see that much encyclopaedic material in the article worth keeping at all - if reduced to a few short paragraphs it would be more easy to reconstruct as a good encyclopaedic article. Just a thought. Claritas § 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The solution isn't to delete articles that need to be improved; the solution is to improve them. This is a notable subject and it deserves an article. Beginning (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2010 (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.