Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place for Paedophiles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing. The nominator's withdrawal notice seems to be followed by a "but" but as this "but" actually was added in the same edit I'am going to be bold and close (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Place for Paedophiles

[edit]
A Place for Paedophiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiny article (two lines) about a noted documentary artists' much less known documentary. No encylcopedic value, as Wikipedia is not the TV guide. Would not be opposed to a merge with Louis Theroux and/or Coalinga State Hospital, although there is only two lines of content here, so there is little to actually merge. Would object to redirect to Coalinga State Hospital if merge is rejected. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Louis Theroux if merge is rejected. Sven Manguard Talk 16:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep overwhelming reliable sources to verify notability and this article needs further expansion clearly. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it amazing that before the AfD there was two sources and one line of text, and afterwards, there are eight sources and an additional hefty paragraph. Please actually state that you have begun working on the article in an effort to save it. By not mentioning it, it undermines the credibility of me, the submitter, anyone (in this case no one) who had already voted, and the AfD process itself. I am overwhelmingly happy that you have decided to improve the article. I am unhappy that you did not extend us the courtesy to mention that fact. In light of this, Motion to suspend AfD proceedings for 48 hours on the grounds that the article creator is working on improving the article to save it. Sven Manguard Talk 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not for deleting stubs or short articles. AFD is for deleting unworthy subjects. Dream Focus 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "no encyclopedic value" I was saying "no notability." I will be clearer in the future. Sorry. Sven Manguard Talk 03:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion denied - Objection, your honor! Sustained. Note that AfD's run for 7 days. You have until October 11 to improve the article. If you make any more motions, I will find you in contempt of court. You do have the option of withdrawing your nomination, however, since there have not been any delete votes yet. SnottyWong converse 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Creator has demonstrated the indecency to make changes to the article without informing AfD and acting like the changes were always there. I am done extending kindness to him. If he is going to try to go it alone without bringing the community in the loop, even after politely being asked to, I see no reason to extend him further assistance. Sad, but it is his choice. Sven Manguard Talk 03:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would they tell you? You seem to be confused on how these things work. Everyone works on an article during AFDs, to fix any problems it has. Assume good faith. He wasn't acting like anything was always there. He just didn't think to mention the ongoing changes he was making. And you didn't extend kindness to him, by nominating his article for deletion without discussion first, like you are suppose to WP:BEFORE. And didn't you send it to AFD on your own, without bringing the community into the loop, and discussing it first? Dream Focus 05:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would like to point out that just because something appeared on TV does not automatically make it notable. In this case the sources he added are reviews (acceptable occasionally) and TV Guide like sites that announce the broadcast and nothing else (not acceptable). I still think that the best solution is the page Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. Sven Manguard Talk 03:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything on television gets a full write up like the one I linked to. Dream Focus 05:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So lets get this straight its not notable User talk:Sven Manguard in spite of the fact I have nationally syndicated newspapers to demonstrate that they reviewed the program and that Louis Theroux won a major television award as a result of the program it is not notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

____________________
Statement for the record after the official closing of the debate
This statement was placed after the debate was formally closed and is not part of the debate proper. It was added for clarification and historical accuracy purposes only. Please do not remove it.
I am making a statement for the record that contrary to the close rationale, at no time did I withdraw the nomination for AfD I only withdrew the offer to extend the article creator extra time. That being said, the article creator has used the time well and greatly improved the article. It still needs extensive work, but may not qualify as an AfD anymore. As is my existing policy, I am not formally withdrawing the request for deletion, however I will no longer actively fight to have it removed. It works, barely, and that's enough for me to move on. Sven Manguard Talk 16:14, 5 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Place_for_Paedophiles&oldid=1137531822"