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 no consensus to delete. As to whether to merge or not, I believe that there is not significant disapproval of Will Beback's proposal to have a single article on Activism related to pedophilia, but neither is there a lot of positive approval, so this may be a reasonable course to attempt, but perhaps a bit more consensus should be sought on the point. Mango juice^talk 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Pedophile Activism[edit]

This is a WP:POV fork of Pedophile activism. The editor who created it state that his reason was to "move the bulky and unnecessary criticism sections from this article".[1] There were no criticism sections of Pedophile activism, and the editor did not seek consensus before creating the fork. Will Beback · † · 01:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect listing and Keep. The reason stated by Will B was only one of my stated reasons, the other being that the article is a subject in its own right (anti - pedophilia, perverted justice, predator hunter, pedophile demonstrations, etc), and should be added to regardless of whether the pedophile activism criticism is eventually moved. This is not a POV fork, either. The POV fork page explicitly states that articles started to doucument a prominent POV are not POV forks themselves.

I also strongly oppose Will's characterisation of me not seeking consensus before the fork. This is not because I did seek consensus (I did not), but because I split absolutely no material, built an original article, and was therefore totally right to create the new page, as this did not disrupt any other projects (beyond a discussion on a talk page).

The reason I am calling out Will B's listing as suspect, is because his original post on the talk page treated my article as if it were a simple 'advocacy against pedophile activism' piece. If it was as such, I would agree to have it deleted in no time. But this clearly isn't the case, as one can see from looking at the article itself; advocacy against pedophile activism is a subsection of a subsection. After looking at the article, it seems as if Will has decided to stick to his original opinion - which I can't seriously believe was informed by looking at the actual article. --Jim Burton 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think this is a POV Fork of pedophile activism. This article is about activism against pedophiles; the other article is about activism by pedophiles in support of normalizing their actions. The two are pretty different, and independent concepts, and I don't think either one is well-served by being folded into the other article. As Jim says, he didn't split any information off, and the criticism section could be moved here in the future. This isn't a POV fork - a fork would be if this page was something like "Criticisms of Pedophile Activism", or something. --Haemo 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong speedy merge This is an attempt to stall the integration of anti pedophile activism into pedophile activism and to even more reduce the current level of criticism in pediphile activism. Redirect material to pedophile activism which from now on needs to contain both pro and anti pedophile activism. IMO this kind of behaviour from nominator needs mediation as a dispute resolution, SqueakBox 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this view, as I do your unreasonably speedy merge (not the first time you've done this), carried out without discussion, let alone consensus! I have not carried out my aims of moving content, which I myself have stated that I wish to seek consensus for. Please be civil, and discuss.

I believe that the current pedophile activism article is laden with a degree of criticism that reflects the consensus in society, as opposed to its relevance to the movement itself. Whilst we should allow for these criticisms to be presented in a general, shortened form within the article itself, we should present the bulk of them in an article that relates to the movement from which they originated. We can easily link to this article from the pedophile activism article.

And I repeat, the creation of my article does not automatically facilitate the recombination of material, which my article can exist perfectly well without. This is why I see SqueakBox's (now repeated) blanking of my article as disgraceful, uncivil editing --Jim Burton 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL as your not doing so will not go in your favour. I find your view on public opinion consensus astonishing, SqueakBox 03:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to stop blanking the article - that's what this process is for. It's an abuse of being bold to do so. --Haemo 04:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the afd notice. I am trying to improve the encyclopedia and accusing me of abusing BOLD strikes me as assuming bad faith, SqueakBox 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see this: Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed., and then I see you do exactly what it tells you not to do here, so I don't know what else to call that but an abuse of being bold --Haemo 04:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute codswallop. I didnt remove the notice, SqueakBox 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you did blank the article. --Haemo 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. And you cant provide the diff either so please stop this silliness, SqueakBox 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did here. --Haemo 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the notice remained and I added a redirect. Hardly blanking the page, indeed I was improving the aricle and wikipedia (the material is in pedophile activism), SqueakBox 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you removed all the content in the article, and replaced the page with a redirect. If that isn't "blanking" I don't know what is. --Haemo 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

I don't understand why we would should merge "pedophile activism" and "anti-pedophile activism" into a single article. The two appear to be distinct fields of activism, and wouldn't be well served as a section of either article. Furthermore, no content has been merged - there is an ongoing discussion of whether or not to merge "criticism of pedophile activism" into this article. I don't think it should, but that isn't really important for the AfD. --Haemo 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge them because they represent the "pro" and "anti" sides of a single topic. We don't routinely put all criticism of a topic into a separate article. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints in every article. -Will Beback · † · 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I think that's where the disagreement here is - this isn't "anti (pedophile activism)" - as in, a page about criticisms of pedophile activism, or being against pedophile activism, but rather about "(anti-pedophile) activism". That is, activism against pedophiles in society. Inevitably, anyone who is an activist against pedophiles in society, will also be opposed to pedophile activism - but that doesn't mean that the two positions are "pro" and "anti" sides of a single topic. --Haemo 05:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking - if you want a single page about all activism related to pedophilia; for instance, people who are activists "for" pedophilia, and those who are "against" it, you're going to have to restructure the page significantly - say, rename it "Activism related to pedophilia", then have sections both "for" and "against". For instance, currently it appears that "pedophile activism" is activism in favor of pedophilia - or so the page currently explains. That makes a simple merge of the content inappropriate. --Haemo 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the editor created this POV fork I had proposed changing the article name to "pedophilia-related activism". That would not be a major change, and in fact would better reflect the contents of the article. -Will Beback · † · 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably this article was created as a response to Will's proposal and before it had been given a reasonabl;e amount of time for discussion, hence this article shopuld be speedied and the original name changing debate continued, SqueakBox 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're also going to need to re-write the article, too - it's currently a little bit confused about the "pro" and "anti" sections; they all kind of blur together into half-criticism, and half-material. I think that some kind of agreement on how to name these articles would be a good idea - maybe, rather than deleting this article, involved editors could work together to restructure the "pedophile activism" article, renaming it as you suggested, and then merge the material once a satisfactory delineation has been made. It seems, however, that the topics are already getting quite long, and the article might be more well-served by a smaller section, summarizing the highlight of this article, and a "main article" link. --Haemo 05:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to me to be an entirely separate concept from the suggested merge topic. Perhaps the involved users should find a method of discussion that doesn't involve blanking and redirecting without consensus. The assertion that blanking and redirecting is entirely different from only blanking is, of course, absurd. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Will mentions that all articles should present all POVs that are relevant. That is fine. What he does not notice, is that with the pedophile activism article, a POV is the subject matter. The subject matter should not be counted as a pov alongside all the others which commentate on that subject matter. The subject matter should be covered objectively (as it is). NPOV comes in when we are considering what views to bounce off the ideas presented, in 'criticism' or 'commentary' sections.

Lets put it this way. We shouldn't be giving socialism a 20% share of the socialism article, simply because only 20% of people support socialism. Criticism should only take up about 25% of an article- maximum. --Jim Burton 06:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a POV is not the subject, a movement is the subject. The article is not about whether pedophilia is a good thing or not, its about men and groups of men who are activists in favor of pedophilia-related causes. Even if it were an article about a POV it would still have to be neutral and present whatever viewpoints there are on that POV. I don't see any source in the article referring to "Anti Pedophile Activism", so I'm not sure that the "antis" are a topic on their own anyway. Most of the material appears to be original research. -Will Beback · † · 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is young, and I aim to add more material and sources to it.

However you want to put it (i.e. not about a POV, about a movement), you can not escape the fact that pro - pedophile and pro - intergenerational sex positions should not be assumed to be part of some balanced debate within the Pedophile Activism article. Those opinions are the subject matter of that article, as with the outspoken positions of communism, anarchism and naziism. Combining pro and anti pedophile activist positions into one article, because both relate to pedophilia (among other things) is as ludicrous as combining Pro life and Pro choice because both relate to abortion.

I will also add that I named the article A P A, because although such a phrase is barely ever used, the phenomenon obviously exists as a coherent and opinion - sharing movement. That they don't have the intelligence to collaborate on a name is out of my control --Jim Burton 07:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both cover different two very different movements related to the same thing. The comparison to Pro-life and Pro-choice is apt, and demanding that the article produce sources from all agencies which match the title is ludicrous, as the article clearly states that the focus is on agencies which are anti-pedophilia. The name is generic, which is more than suitable for the title of an article. It conveys the concept, the opposition to pedophiles and agencies which forward this goal, and that's all we can really expect out of a title. I'd say give it a couple weeks, at the very least: It's silly to expect an article created yesterday to spring forth fully formed. I see the makings of a good article, here. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is not NPOV, seems to exist primarily as a critique of Perverted Justice. There is no evidence of a movement, per se, just a few examples thrown in to enhance the anti-Perverted Justice material. The place for some of this, in my opinion, is in the Perverted Justice entry. What's left is not sufficient for an independent entry. -Jmh123 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge so that both sides of a controvery appear in the same article, to avoid a POV fork. Edison 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or rename to anti-child sexual abuse movement. -Jillium 18:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename - Content should be merged with Pedophile activism and the resulting article renamed. -- Kesh 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bring your attention to the pro life / pro choice comparison. Both are seperate movements. --Jim Burton 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is not a merge vote, it is a delete vote. --Jim Burton 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" is a standard !vote in AfDs. -Will Beback · † · 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with merging is that barely anything involved in my article has relevance to the Pedophile Activism topic. Why? Because my article has relevance on its own; it documents a coherent, noticeable movement!

To get the articles merged would require a name change, and that would require a lot of idiots. --Jim Burton 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...[A]and that would require a lot of idiots. What is that supposed to mean? Are you calling those who've proposed a name change "idiots"? And as for there being a "coherent" movement so far you haven't been able to find any sources for the "movement" at all. -Will Beback · † · 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid atacking those you disagree with. It makes for an unpleasant atmosphere. Imagine we were all in the same office and you started calling us idiots - well I am sure you can imagine. So please remain civil, SqueakBox 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am calling no one an idiot, but just implying that if the name were changed succesfully, so that we had an article that referred to a culture war as opposed to either of the notable movements, a lot of idiots would have to turn up. SqB, stop accusing me of things that I did not do (and an activist agenda). That is highly uncivil of you. I have sourced the movement by referring to the free bloghosts that almost all of them use, or otherwise the paid websites such as PJ and PH. --Jim Burton 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am fully aware that they are seperate movements. That does not preclude placing both sides of the issue in the same article where, I believe, they would be better suited. Neither movement has the same level of social awareness as Pro Choice/Pro Life, nor Pro Gay/Anti Gay movements, or other activism. As to your comment about this AfD, "merge" is often a valid solution aside from Keep/Delete. This is not a binary process, and I'm proposing an alternative I believe would best suit the facts Wikipedia will be presenting. -- Kesh 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that whilst I am trying to defend this article, another editor is removing references to blogs, originally designed to simply show that some free blogs which promote certain activities exist. Needing external documentation (other than the blogs themselves) that blogs promote ceratin agendas strikes me as crazy --Jim Burton 02:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or Merge The content is valuable. Whether it should be a part of Pedophile activism or its own article is a matter of philosophy and perhaps length. The content and edit history should not be lost. Dfpc 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be warned that if the articles were to be merged, we would end up with an article that constrained the dissemination of information about two notable movements and ways of thinking; a phenomenon (as opposed to movement or ideology) page that would end up as some hideously fragmented war between the two cultures that were editing it. --Jim Burton 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a notable movement how come you can't find any reliable sources describing it? -Will Beback · † · 04:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Because I arguably have. B: Because I don't need to, since the subject of the article is not a movement and besides, it can be deemed a valid entity solely on the merit of being endorsed by a community. C: Because admin has lumbered me with an AfD and merge discussion barely seconds after creating the article. Yeah, if you want to do a hatchet job on an article, best get them young, eh' lads? --Jim Burton 05:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't found a single source which discusses "anti-pedophile activism". If I'm wrong please provide the link here and I'll apologize for my error. -Will Beback · † · 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as a matter of fact I nominated it for deletion after a discussion on the talk:pedophile activism page and 5,940 seconds. -Will Beback · † · 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that I have an article describing the named phenomenon, but as Lanky said,the name is generic, which is more than suitable for the title of an article. What I do have already, and in abundance when given time, is sources that demonstrate various shades of what fits in to that generic title, and even the links between those different shades; perverted justice being a prominent example. 'Barely Seconds' was not intended to be literal, but rather a comic reference to the way that you sent the offending article to this dungeon before I could barely make it credible. As I said elsewhere, if you wnat to do a hatchet job, best get em' young! --Jim Burton 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When and if that happens, the editors of the combined article will discuss splitting. I suspect they will come to a consensus to split quickly for the very reasons you mention. The key points being 1) it will be a community decision and 2) you and I could both be wrong, the two sides could get along amicably. Dfpc 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting take on how merging the articles could help me get my way! --Jim Burton 06:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Current Recommendations: Voters: 11 Keep: 5 Merge: 3.5 Delete: 2.5 --Jim Burton 07:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sounds like a lack of a consensus. If this trend continues I recommend "fail"ing the Afd/keeping the article, "suggesting" the articles be merged, wait at least 6 months and see what happens. Hopefully by that time the quality of both articles or a merged article will be so high that nobody will suggest deleting anything. Dfpc 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barring the huge criticism section, the Pedophile Activism article is already a high quality (although unranked) piece. Problem is, various others think not. --Jim Burton 01:33, 12 May 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.