Deletion of Lindsay Ashford (activist)

Comment: non-notable, plain and simple. Best case, it's  and ''still'' needs to go. Just kill it with fire already
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: An unpleasant man, yes. But there is plenty of media coverage for this person to meet  needs http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Lindsay+Ashford%22+pedophile&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a, but the article is overlong and the claims without verification should either be sourced or cut
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Marginal notability and perennial  concerns. The article is not linked from anywhere useful on Wikipedia, so deleting it is not a real loss of context for any other article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I've already entered a "delete" recommendation based on non-notability. An additional problem with this article is that the title is |original research.  None of the (few) references in the article describe him as an activist. Following the links shows that he is referred to as "self-proclaimed pedophile", "self-described pedophile", "self-admitted pedophile", and other similar terms. Google searches do not find any |verifiable sources using the term "activist" to describe Ashford. If the article is kept, it has to be disambiguated, because there is an author by the same name, but "activist" can't be used, so what would we use instead?  Lindsay Ashford (pedophile website owner)? He's not notable for anything other than that, and even that's not notable.  That's the problem. If there were reliable sources discussing this person as an activist based on notable actions or events, that would be different. But there aren't any of those. That's the reason to delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V)