Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom O'Carroll

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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom O'Carroll

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

The only real notability of this individual is his convictions for child pornography, unfortunately attempts to improve the article have been subject to blanket revertion without discussion so it is also very hard to improve and appears that at least one user has an agenda about owning the article though its the sheer lack of notability that makes this article require deletion not anything else ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just for the record, I am not a fan of the subject of this BLP, but the WP policies take precedence. The applicable policy here would seem to be WP:ACADEMIC #1, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The subject's work is (not surprising) controversial, but that it has been widely discussed (both positively and negatively) demonstrates that it has had substantial impact in the field. Reviews of his work (already cited on the page) include:

Mary-Kay Wilmers "'Young Love", London Review of Books, 2:23 · 4 December 1980, pp. 9–10 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v02/n23/mary-kay-wilmers/young-love
Charles Rycroft "Sensuality from the start", Times Literary Supplement, 21 November 1980
John Rae "Suffer little children", Times Educational Supplement, 17 October 1980
Maurice Yaffé "'Age of Consent", New Statesman, 7 November 1980, p.31
Eric Taylor "Too young to love?", New Society, 30 October 1980, p.246

So, although I appreciate editors' potential discomfort, such emotions do not (or ought not) override our guidelines.— James Cantor (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor discomfort? I am not aware of any of that, what do you mean by that. The afd rationale wasnt editor discomfort it was lack of notability. I am not opposed to merging any relevant material into Paedophile Information Exchange♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Infamous who passes WP:AUTHOR #3 (book reviews), and WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indeed he passes both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. I also might be wrong here but is the nominator saying that because the editing isnt going his way he wants the article deleted rather than keeping the discussion about improvements going. Anyway this article should not be deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James Cantor. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it doesn't matter why they are notable. He's notable. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, given that the subject is a notorious paedophile with multiple convictions, the article seems to go out of its way to provide "balance" by cherry-picking material to suggest he might not be so bad after all. I think it needs some attention. Formerip (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2013 (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.