Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elm Guest House claims and controversy

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. Per WP:SNOW. The consensus is that the subject meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elm Guest House claims and controversy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article was created and largely edited from 2012 onwards on the basis and the perspective that the allegations were all, mostly or largely true, all the way until the main accuser 'Nick' was (after in June 2017 charged with 4 counts of making indecent images of children, 1 count of possessing indecent images of children and 1 count of Voyeurism [1]) charged additionally with 12 counts of Perverting the Course of Justice and also 1 count of Fraud, understood to be in connection with him making false allegations of himself being a supposed victim of alleged 'satanic child sexual abuse' by the supposed 'Westminster VIP (Tory) paedophile ring', operated out of the House of Commons, Elm Guest House and Dolphin Square back in the 1970s and the 1980s, on 3 July 2018 [2], and who was then subsequent named on 3 December 2018 as Carl (Carl Stephen) Beech. [3] It almost certainly contains or contained, past or present, various libellous or highly libellous stuff made either by 'Nick' himself or his supporters from Exaro News. Best deleted. (I myself just wouldn't resurrect the article, but I would let others decide on that.) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No rationale for deletion, the bottom line is that this passes WP:GNG. The allegations were indeed bogus and the article reflects this.LM2000 (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no 'Elm Guest House' and no abuse took place, so the title would have to go for a start. Typically, here in Wikipedia, if false and defamatory/libellous accusations against BLPs were made, WP:RevDel is initiated, IF the individual defamatory or libellous edits could be found ... the trouble with this one is, where do we even start?! -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly notable, even if the allegations aren't true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If the allegations are never true in the first place, then surely Notability is false and has not been properly (re)established. -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because the case is notable. The abuse may never have happened, but the investigations around the allegations certainly happened. And that's what the article is about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may well need a careful rewrite, but there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-21 March 2016 sources are not reliable, that's the whole point. -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to improve the article. Edwardx (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per coverage, per sourcing. WP:GNGBabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has to take into account that Carl Beech was charged with perverting the course of justice, but that does not mean that the entire article should be deleted. Instead, it should be rewritten to make sure that it is up to date. It is notable because of the huge amount of time and money that Plod spent on pursuing the "credible and true" allegations of Operation Midland.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, needs updating not deletion. I don't see any of the "libelous stuff" in the article that the proposer mentions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, article contains numerous sources that discuss the subject (a rename to just "Elm Guest House" may be appropriate though). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2019 (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.