Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Face of Pedophilia

Was asked to be merged with Lindsay Ashford, merger happened, does not need to exist any longer. Get-back-world-respect 06:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Normally when a page is merged, you leave a redirect at the old title. You generally only delete the old title if you think the title itself is wrong, or if there is a policy reason for deleting the page history (e.g. copyvio). Securiger 07:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Undid the redirect while VfD is underway, as that allows us to vote on the article. I would vote delete. Even having the history with this article in it bothers me more than a little. Hidden in it is a link to Lindsay Ashford's website, where pedophiles can swap stories. Delete and then either recreate a redirect article only, if a redirect is really needed, or leave empty, if not. Geogre 13:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect: we can't accept responsibility for the actions on another website that ours used to link to, and we do have a need to conserve the edit history as much as possible. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. Seems important enough to warrant a redirect, but not its own article. Psychonaut 17:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. Controversy is not grounds for deletion. Sadly the topic is verifiable and notable, so it should be kept. I'm going to restore the redirect but the historical version is viewable, if voters need to consider it. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. I find the subject matter deplorable, however, I can still see clearly enough that this does not warrant its own article on its own. It does need to be noted, however. Mike H 18:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect, just as we would redirect a song title to its author (as I did this morning with the Lords of Acid.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:47, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect, because we must under the GDFL to preserve the edit history of the merged material.--Samuel J. Howard 02:57, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)