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 Speedy delete as a gross BLP violation. Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Allison[edit]

Janet Allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. Lara 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Agree with Lara 100%. Any useful information with the sources could go in Sex offender or Sex offender registration, but there is simply no reason to have an article on Janet Allison when "reliable sources cover [her] only in the context of [one] particular event". NW (Talk) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- BLP1E is certainly applicable here, can't argue with the nominator on that. Could even be considered WP:G10 eligible, but i'm not sure, since the material is "sourced", and the criteria for that specifies that it be unsourced. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails BLP1E. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. also, i dont think that details of stay away orders, even permanent ones should be in WP, esp. if they are not given in precise detail, including the exact date of it ending, and how do we know someone will watch this like a hawk, per BLP. after all, the law may change, her case may get altered, and then were in violation. overall, it seems like an unfair use of WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Straight fail WP:BLP1E, nothing else to it. — neuro^(talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As article creator, my keep comes at no surprise. First, let's recap the facts. Janet Allison, a mother of five, allows that her 15-year old daughter is sexually active - not an uncommon occurrence in many countries. In Georgia, USA, she is convicted as a sex-offender which brings her swift social deroute: her children is put in foster care, she is forced to move into a mobile home, she is not allowed to see her daughter and grandson, and she stays in public register branded as a sex-offender for life. Second, what happens? The Economist has incredible international penetration, a very high reputation for facts checking - in short an extremely reliable source. Every week they publish 5 or 6 leaders. As their second leader they discuss USA sex-offender laws and they chose to present Janet Allison's case as a horror example - an example for other countries not to commit the same mistake as USA. I emphasize, this is not mention of the person Janet Allison, but the legal case Janet Allison. The article follows this line. It is not about her early childhood, education, employment, achievements, etc - but the unintended consequences of well-meant legislation to protect the innocent. The Wikipedia article is about the event, not the person. BLP1E does simply not apply. The case Janet Allison is also mentioned extensively in a USA Today article. The case Janet Allison is mentioned in Human Rights Organizations. We know little about her, it's the case that is interesting. This mention in highly reputable RS makes the article a clear pass for WP:GNG. Should it be merged into sex offender registration? No, for two reasons. First, many more RS can be found for this case, the legal reasoning and steps and the social deroute could be detailed, there could be links to the legal acts, and what other op-eds in RS say about the story, pro and con. There is context for an article. Second, because this is only one example of unintended consequences of that law. Teenagers that text half-naked photos of themselves to friends risk being prosecuted for "distributing child pornography", (Economist), teens that have consensual sex also risk being prosecuted as "sex-offenders" (ibid). Those cases could also warrant articles in themselves, of course depending on the sheer amount of RS. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I reversed my closure out of respect for the above comment, which arrived in the same moment as the deletion. I would like to reiterate, however, that this article is a biography of a living person, and thus BLP1E is a totally valid argument. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comments Part of the problem is of course that BIO1E is exceptionally vague. If you kill Barrack Obama and in the same go manage to start a Third World War - then ok, you can have your own article. If you are a random bystander, that happens to film an event that turns out to be notable, then no. Quoting Wikidemon: BLP1E is one of the more frequently misunderstood policies. People are often made famous - and notable, meaning of lasting interest to informed readers - for a single thing. Events are often notable, and by definition an event happens only once. BLP1E reflects the truism that a person's connection to a notable event does not always make the person themselves notable. That is clearly not the case here. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a random bystander, that happens to film an event that turns out to be notable, then no.- you sure about that? ;) Umbralcorax (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The keep rationale cites no policy, or guide for that matter. An assassination carries historical significance. The story of this article being interesting does not negate the glaring BLP1E problem. This is exactly what that part of the policy was written for. If you want to add to the list of horrible things that have happened to this woman, include a sentence about a biography on one of the world's top five websites. Lara 04:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm against the whole almost every murderer and sexual predator and relatives and victims of them getting an article thing. Joe Chill (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I cleaned the article up, as it wasn't even accurate, but it needs to be deleted ASAP. The keep argument carries no weight and this article is wholly in violation of our BLP policy. Lara 04:30, 18 August 2009 (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.