Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marthijn Uittenbogaard

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 merge. We can't delete and merge, but we can redirect, which is what I'm going to do here. This can be reversed as an editorial decision, but I think it's the best course of action for now. The article history is still there if people want to merge additional information. W.marsh 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marthijn Uittenbogaard

If you came here because of a request on a forum[1], please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No notability. Any worthy material should be merged into Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. Being an extremist paedophile doesnt warrant notability SqueakBox 16:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even in the UK & US, he has relevance as one of the world's very few 'out' pedophiles, and as a writer and activist who has been translated in to English. In the NL, he has achieved minor fame as a member of the PNVD, and has featured on a number of television shows / panels including a documentary. Readers should note that the nominator has claimed that the mere sourcing of Uittenbogaard's writing is POV, since it comes from a 'sick mind'. Sick or not, the man is a notable subject. Jim♥Burton 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are thousands of outed pedophiles, eg on the UK sex offendors list itself there are at least hundreds, so to claim he is one of very few is not true, SqueakBox 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Utter nonsense. CSOs are not particularly pedophiles. Only about 10% are, and we have no method of determining which ones are. Uittenbogaard is self - outed and and activist for his cause. Jim♥Burton 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That is your opinion, its not mainstream opinion. Obviously not all registered sex offenders are pedophiles but those who have abused children or owned child pornography are, SqueakBox 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, where exactly are you talking from? Just because you have sex with a child, it doesn't automatically mean that you are primarily attracted to them. As I said, 10% at the most. Those who have viewed CP are more likely to be pedos, but even then most of them are in no way 'out', simply for being on a list, nor do we know what ones are and what ones are not pedos. Jim♥Burton 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that is your opinion but it isnt mainstream opinion. Paedophile and child sex abuser are pretty synonymous terms in the UK, SqueakBox 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, too right. I didn't know the rules of this debate were ad populum Jim♥Burton 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We are an encyclopedia of all notable knowledge so ad populum is, of course, very important, SqueakBox 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Warped logic. I was applying it to a debate, and you state the rule of consensus that I was never contesting. Jim♥Burton 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately notable enough for wikipedia, he is a key figure and definately can be on a article of his own. The will to delete seem to stem from dislike of the topic rather than an valid reason to delete. V.☢.B 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nomination is for the reasons stated, ie lack of notability, SqueakBox 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also note that the article is young - barely a day old, with little opportunity of developing. As I have said before, if an editor wants to do a hatchet job, best get em' young. Fortunately, this crashed with Anti Pedophile Activism. Jim♥Burton 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I do not agree with his form of sexual arousal, he's had a documentary made about him, numerous pieces written about him in reliable sources, which clearly to me shows he meets WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment + Evidence of TV Apps 1 2 3 4 Jim♥Burton 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment YouTube isnt notable and this stuff should go into Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, SqueakBox 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm using YouTube to show that mainstream news pieces have featured him. Jim♥Burton 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which demonstrates the party is notable (just) but the individuals arent, SqueakBox 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        YouTube isn't the only source. Netwerk and various panel shows have also featured him. Google support of activism to see the screenshots. Jim♥Burton 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like it and think he is disgusting, but he seems to be notable enough. Unfortunately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very strong keep seems clearly notable, few are willing to puiblicly speak as advocates for peophillia. We may strongly disapprove, but wikipeida is to report facts, not our editors PoV. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, we seem to have some kind of consensus here, but this is in no way the case, over at Norbert de Jonge and Ad van den Berg - the other members of the party. I see de Jonge as the best article of the lot. Jim♥Burton 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange indeed, this is the worst of the 3 because of the views section IMO and his chilling website but lets give it a few more days, SqueakBox 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "His chilling website". You really do know what you're doing don't you. The reason why people are voting to delete is really no surprise, is it? Jim♥Burton 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do nto appear to be indpeendent, and notability does not appear to be independent of his very small party. Looks as if there is a POV push going on here. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources are independent, so there's nothing to estapblish the notability of the individual. Without independent sourece we can't write a properly NPOV article. This is one of a set of new articles about pedophile activists that have been created recently. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that isn't too hard. I've sourced the article with a piece from a dutch site. Jim♥Burton 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you mean this link, [2], it's about the party. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take note, 1. Who is a more notable, more unique case Julien Valero or Marthijn Uittenbogaard? 2. Who is less controversial? 3. Who is most likely to get deleted? Jim♥Burton 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant. Wikipedia is not consistent. Citing other articles that you think are less notable is not a helpful AfD argument. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, WP has thousands of Julien Valeros, and is therefore consistent, in listing people of far less significance and originality than Uittenbogaard. Jim♥Burton 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not independent. Not notable for English Wikipedia. -Jmh123 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The sources are good enough to show that he exists, and to show that he says what he says. DGG 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are party leaders of other very minor contemporary NL political parties? If so, keep on that basis alone. If not, has is his notability outside of NL sufficient to meet the Wiki-notability threshold? On another note, the party is in the NL wikipedia but I don't see the man. Maybe I'm looking under the wrong name. I would strongly encourage the Dutch-speaking Wikipedians to write an article for the NL Wikipedia. Dfpc 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are unreliable, or fail WP:SELF. Fails WP:A on the whole. Ohconfucius 10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the party page Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. Amazingly enough for a "political party" that has never participated in an election, much less won a seat, the party appears notable. But notability is not contagious, and I fail to see anything which warrants a separate article for any of its participants at this time. Serpent's Choice 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Subject is not notable. Maybe the Dutch parties that were mentioned can establish enough notability as an oddity, then merge. In my opinion the subject of the article in question or fellow party members are not notable enough for an international encyclopedia, so delete the information that is not merged. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fail WP:SELF/Fails WP:A. --Fredrick day 10:36, 20 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.