Wikipedia:Deletion review/Janet Allison

Janet Allison (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was subjected to BLP emergency measures to delete on sight and was after a very short discussion SNOW closed twice as delete back in August. This emergency delete process is extremely harsh as it effectively limits oversight to admins only, those wiht privileges to access deleted information. The delete process offered no time for the Wikipedia community at large to reach consensus and after deletion has taken place, the community is de-facto unable examine and assess the merits of the delete rationale. Worse, no deletion rationale was presented other than entirely subjective assertions that "this is a BLP violation". Hastily prepared keep arguments were not addressed.

I request that the article is restored and that the AfD runs its course. Arguments are:

1. Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy is designed to avoid harm to peoples' privacy and avoid potential libel claims and slander - articles must be written with greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.
2. The issue of the article (it is a case story) is that some people suddenly finds themselves in a public register of sex-offenders. I repeat - it's a public register, that's precisely the stigma here. The source of potentially stigmatizing defamation is a public register.
3. The information in the article concerns that the living person has unjustly or unfairly been labeled as "sex-offender". Unless "harm" is interpreted in an unusually broad manner, as also comprising satisfaction for defamatory claims, this is not harm. The main overturn argument is - the article does no harm - it should therefore not be subjected to emergency measures to delete
4. The article had exceptionally reliable sources - above all a leader in The Economist - a highly influential magazine with a very high reputation for facts-checking - and should I say, enormous international penetration.
5. The subject of the article has herself presented the same information in a broadcasted television show. Referring the same information in Wikipedia does no harm to this persons privacy.
6. Numerous other reliable sources debate the case from the same premises as the Wikipedia article, major news channels, scholarly research papers, etc.
7. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the coverage in a leader in The Economist, there is now a large body of independent mention. A GSearch of the subjects name followed by "sex offender" [1] now returns about 24k hits. I would claim that WP:RS and WP:GNG are fulfilled, and the WP:BLP1E is not applicable, but this issue is really a matter for the community to decide at AfD

The most troubling issue however, is that the emergency delete side has really not felt bothered to present arguments. In a telling gesture, Jennevecia aka Lara etc, has offered to "bust out some construction paper and crayons and try to draw it out" and stated that it simply "is 100% clear for anyone who read the article". [2] She also labeled it as "garbage" [3] This is WP:DONTLIKEIT in a nutshell and I find the tone quite inappropriate for an admin.

I would like to reiterate that this DRV should concern the emergency deletion only. Any discussion concerning WP:BLP1E is notability related and should take place at AfD - the proper community forum for that.

Additional discussion can be found at the closing admin's user page User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 27#BLP and User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 27#When should articles be speedy deleted under BLP?.

I consider that various fundamental issues are at stake here and request that this DRV runs its due course and is not curtailed or prematurely closed. Non-admins who wish to see the article can take a look at an anonymized version I have sought to recreate here User:Power.corrupts/Sandbox/JA, additional sources are listed here User:Power.corrupts/Sandbox/Allison sources

Power.corrupts (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Power.corrupts, I understand your desire to limit this DRV to the emergency deletion and disregard the BLP1E issue, but I am afraid I do not agree. The discussion and the deletion grounds were clearly very strongly concerned with BLP1E and I do not believe it will be possible to separate the matter of BLP1E from the deletion.

  I agree that Jennavecia is one of several people whose behaviour concerning BLPs has occasionally skirted the edge of tendentious editing. But she does have a good faith belief that Wikipedia's coverage of living people is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't see it quite her way, but the key factor here is that she did not close the debate and she did not delete the article. All she did was to say things she believed in a forceful manner. We cannot reasonably censure her for that. The question you ask about whether her behaviour was appropriate for an admin does not arise, because she performed no administrative actions concerning the article.

  Taking all these matters into consideration, I believe Tiptoety's closure was a reasonable invocation of WP:SNOW based on a well-attended, near-unanimous discussion and I endorse it.

  I notice that the page is not protected. Nevertheless, I would encourage you not to re-create the article in that space, because there seems to be a strong consensus that such an article should not exist on Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps, but why not test BLP1E at the proper venue - AfD. Notability is not a valid reason for emergency deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have added to my summary above that owing to an unrelated issue, Jennavecia no longer has administrative tools, and would I think be unlikely to regain them. With regard to your remark there, I would say that BLP1E was tested at AfD and there was a resounding consensus about it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I too read the {{afd}} shortly after its second premature closure. My understanding is that it is the role of the closing administrator to make a interpretation of the arguments contributors advanced, and make a determination as to whether those arguments comply with our existing policies. It is my understanding that the policy-compliant administrator is authorized to discount arguments they considered counter to our policies. It is my understanding that a closing administrator is authorized to discount any apparent majority of the opinions voiced if they think they can make and defend the determination that those opinions are counter policy. A closing administrator who discounts arguments that are clearly based on misconceptions, of either the facts, or of our policies, is I believe acting completely within the bounds of the authority entrust to them. The core of the BLP policy is intended to protect individuals from being the victims of libel and slander, via the wikipedia, and to protect the wikipedia from being sued by individual who think the wikipedia slandered them. No individual who volunteered to identify themselves as a convicted sex offender on nationwide TV, and in an international publications, would have any grounds to sue the wikipedia or anyone else, for covering the WP:RS where they identified themselves as a convicted sex offender. And in Mrs A's case I think it is highly unlikely suing anyone would even cross her mind -- because she chose to go public with her case in order to lobby for reform. So arguments based on the core of BLP are entirely bogus. And arguments based on the tail end of BLP -- arguments based on BLP1e are also bogus, because Mrs A. is known for more than "one event". Her years of public advocacy for the reform of who is included on sex offender registries is a whole other event. IMO a wise closing administrator would have been fully authorized to discount all BLP arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are mistaken if you belief the core of BLP is solely to protect individuals from being the victims of libel and slander and to protect wikipedia from being sued. I suggest you read WP:BLP where it says in the third paragraph (amongst other things which also emphasise the point): "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Note that WP:BLP only mentions libel 4 or 5 times depending on how you count, 3 of these are links to Wikipedia:Libel itself a policy (albeit a short one) both of which should give you further clues that BLP is much more then just about libel. As a regular at WP:BLP/N there are plenty of things which come up which are unlikely to be slander/libel particularly in the US, which we deal with all the time. This is not to say slander/libel isn't a serious issue and something which BLP is intended to prevent but we very often go much further then the legal requirements and this isn't the tail end of BLP but a very important part of it. In particular, any discussion which starts off with the premise 'X can't sue us so it's okay' is fatally flawed. In fact, we should never have to consider whether X can sue us because anything which goes that far generally should be clear cut deleted with a passion and ideally not even require any discussion. This obviously isn't an argument in support of the deletion but since you yourself said admins should "discounts arguments that are clearly based on misconceptions" hopefully you'd recognise that one of your central arguments should be discounted by any admin Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, please don't mischaracterize what I wrote. Second, please don't represent an attempt to suppress coverage of Mrs A's case as a good faith attempt to protect her privacy and her interests. Such arguments are highly disrespectful of her choice to sacrifice her privacy to serve as a public advocate for reform. Mrs A actively chose to be candid in her many public appearances about the charges against her, how they came about, and the impact they have had on her life. Frankly I am appalled at the arguments here that claim that suppression protects her interests. Let's be frank here, she spent years as a public spokesman who tried to use the circumstances of her case to advocate for reform. So what the attempts to suppress her story looks like is that those arguing for censorship have picked sides, and lined up with the conservative forces opposed to the reforms Mrs A. if fighting for. We are not supposed to pick sides. This looks like a very serious lapse from WP:NPOV. Mrs A, or any other public advocate, including those on the opposite side of her public debate, don't merit coverage merely because they decided to be a public advocates. Mrs A, or any other public advocate, would merit coverage if reliable, authoritative and verifiable sources write about her in meaningful detail. I believe her interviews for PBS, the Economist and USA Today serve as those references. Geo Swan (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tend to think that it is the rare case when a snow delete close less than 24 hours after the nomination is valid. I'm not certain whether this one, which is about 13 hours, is such a case. Tim Song (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I'm a little surprised at this DRV, not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT but because, regardless of what we do or don't like, it sure looks like WP:BLP1E to me. I note that the detailed DRV presentation above doesn't address that–the one thing that was repeated most in the AfD–except to say that it "is not applicable" (with no rationale for such a claim). I looked at the article too; it was terribly one-sided, but that could be fixed...if only its subject were notable.  Frank  |  talk  13:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP1e doesn't apply, because there are multiple events. Mrs A. was charged, tried, and convicted, of what was, technically, a sex offence; she was named on a sex offender registry, which will have a lifelong negative impact; and she chose to sacrifice her privacy and volunteer to spend years serving as spokesman and advocate -- appearing on nationwide TV and being interviewed in publications with a world-wide reach. I consider this at least two events.
  • The policy on writing from a neutral point of view was one of the wikipedia project's first policies, and remains one of its most central. We are not supposed to take sides. We are not supposed to write an article that shows undue sympathy for Mrs A's position. We are not supposed to write an article that advocates for the position of the prosecution and those who maintain the registry of sex offenders. And finally, we should not suppress coverage of Mrs A., and her advocacy for reforming the management of registries of sex offenders, because we are sympathetic with the prosecution's case. Unfortunately this is the appearance the early termination of the {{afd}} gives, that the adminstrators who invoked WP:BLP and WP:BLP1e to force an early termination wanted to censor the wikipedia because they had taken the sided with prosecution. Given that the BLP and BLP1e arguments are based on entirely faulty assumptions the question of whether or not Mrs A merited an article of her own the important question is whether there are sufficient reliable, verifiable references to support a claim of notability. That question should have had a full seven days to explore, during an {{afd}} that was not closed early giving the unfortunate appearance that the closing administrators had picked sides. Seven days gives those with an inclination time to find new references, and to rewrite an article to address some of the concerns those who initially advocated deletion raised. Wikipedia contributors have been known to change sides during those seven days, when the see what they first thought was an irredeemably hopeless article get improved beyond expectation. Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced. The arrest for and conviction of almost any offense doesn't automatically make one notable around here; her notability stems from the hooplah surrounding it. That some of the hooplah was self-generated doesn't change that fact. It's still one event. There are very many interesting and unusual people, places, and things in this world; they don't automatically merit articles.  Frank  |  talk  21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No offense, but this seems to me to be a straw argument. The Georgia sex offender registry probably lists thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even one hundred thousand individuals. When the justice system works smoothly, or seems to work smoothly, suspects are charged, tried, and either acquitted, or convicted and serve their sentences, without generating any real ripple of notability or notoriety. The John Hinckley or Rodney Kings being atypical exceptions. Some of us are arguing that Janet Allison was also an exception, because, unlike 99 and some fraction percentage of those on the registry she has chosen to be an advocate for reform, who has given interviews, published and broadcast around the world, where she used her case to argue for reform. Merely wanting to be an advocate doesn't merit coverage. But world-wide coverage, in WP:VER, WP:RS argues that she was a successful advocate. Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of those arguing against overturning the {{afd}} have argued for "courtesy blanking" of this DRV and the original {{afd}} to protect the privacy Mrs A already chose to forgo. That is clearly contrary to what she regards her interests, and I think it would be grossly insulting. Some people have suggested a compromise -- an article on the struggle for reform of (Georgia's(?)) sexual offender registries, rather than on Mrs A herself, that could include coverage of other individuals who chose to forgo their privacy to become advocates for reform. I hope whatever ruling results from this DRV is clear that "courtesy blanking" would be counter-policy in this instance. If endorsement of the deletion is the result I hope the ruling is clear that BLP and BLP1e would not be valid arguments to suppress neutrally written, properly referenced coverage Mrs A's case in other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close and Deletion. Had I reviewed the article, I would have been hard-pressed not to Speedy Delete as an attack page - and that's essentially what the closing admin did (Insufficiently sourced BLP). The four sources included in the article (at the time of nomination) are not specifically about the subject, but about "Sex Offender Laws Gone Amok" (Forensic Psychologist) and "Illiberal politics: America's unjust sex laws" (The Economist), for example. The unsourced claims are egregious enough that they would be removed immediately were I to post them here. So, on the face of it, it's a good deletion. As for the debate, I note that only one person recommended that the article be Kept, and that the argument was that BLP1E did not apply because the article was about the event, not the living person. Unfortunately, the article was titled after this person's name, and focused on details of their life unrelated to a crime, court proceeding, etc. So, even if the focus was intended to be on the event, BLP dictates that any article, broadly defined, that purports to talk about a living person must meet strict sourcing requirements - and this article did not. So the debate probably would have closed with consensus to delete anyway, and so closing it when the article was speedy deleted (which itself didn't require a debate) is reasonable. I question why the AFD was not itself blanked, since many of the unsourced claims about the subject are repeated there. But that's another issue. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't our deletion policies state that arguments for deletion should be based on the merits of covering the topic of the article, not on the current state of article? Aren't administrators who close {{afd}} supposed to look at the final state of the article? Usually those who think the concerns of those advocating deletion are given those seven days to try to address the concerns raised. I am very concerned that you seem to be basing your endorsement of the initial deletion closures on the state of the article at the time of its nomination.
  • I am mystified by your description of the article as an "attack page". Mrs A chose to serve as an advocate and lobbyist for the reform of the management of sex registries. In doing so she chose to publicly identify herself as a registered sex offender. I am sorry, but if you are characterizing the article as an "attack page" because it identified Mrs A as a registered sex offender I am afraid I have to say you did so without making enough effort to inform yourself first.
  • I am also very concerned with your advocacy of "courtesy blanking". For courtesy blanking to be an actual courtesy it would have to correspond with what the particular individual wanted. When someone has chosen to be a public spokesman, and to voluntarily share the details of their life, for us to step in and blank our discussions out of respect for their privacy is insulting. They chose to sacrifice their privacy. Their decision to sacrifice their privacy doesn't in and of itself justify an article about them -- that would depend on the existence of reliable and veriable references to support their notability. But to blank the {{afd}} and this {{drv}} give the very unfortunate appearance of a lapses from WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. We are not supposed to pick sides. Blanking the page gives the appearance of taking sides and siding with those who favor the status quo in the management of sex offender registries that Mrs A is working to see reformed. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The version of the article I looked at was the version immediately prior to nomination. The only edits after that date are 1 edit by Jennavecia to nominate the article for deletion, and two edits by Jennavecia to do some cleanup work, including removing a source that was not pertinent to the subject. The rationale for Deletion (in its entirety, "Classic BLP1E") bore examination, and the state of the article that generated that evaluation was what I looked at. There was not a significant change in the article from nomination to deletion. At AFD, yes, the current state of the article is pertinent (and whether it can be edited to bring it into compliance with policy), but this is DRV - here, we're looking at the conduct of the debate and its result.
    • I looked into sources available about the subject, and there is reliable, independent information to support an article on the subject - but, this article at this point in its history made undeniably negative claims about the subject and did not support those claims with inline citations to sources focused specifically on this subject. Stating that someone was guilty of a crime involving child molestation, for example - might be true (and, in fact, is), but was not documented as required by BLP.
    • My recommendation discussion of courtesy blanking is also based in BLP - we state that an individual named Janet Allison was convicted of a particular crime involving child molestation, is a sex offender, and is barred by the state from seeing her own children (and grandchild). There is more than one Janet Allison in the world, and someone may track down an AFD debate that describes this Janet Allison in this way. NOINDEX helps with this, but given the BLP implications, there is no good reason not to blank the debate (and this debate, now). We are supposed to be neutral, so we should not base a decision to blank the debate on what the subject may or may not want, as inferred by us from their public statements. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (Though see my comment below in re: blanking)[reply]
      • So let me get this straight... you believe this debate, here, should be deleted just because some people somewhere in the world are too stupid to follow the references and see that this Janet Allison isn't the Janet Allison that they personally know? I'm sorry, but that's not how an encyclopedia works. This case is (as highlighted by multiple other editors) about the alleged miscarriage of justice that resulted in Ms. Allison being convicted of a crime of allowing her 15 year old daughter to have sexual relations with her then-17 year-old future husband. If this were an unsubstantiated allegation, you'd have my full support. If this matter were not yet settled at trial, you'd have my full support. To try and excise from Wikipedia mention of facts in the public record, however, is mind-bogglingly silly Streisand effect fodder. Did someone steal the unreferenced qualifier of BLP when I wasn't looking? Wikipedia can and should have well-sourced BLPs of notable people. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm ambivalent about blanking this debate; if there's consensus to blank the AFD, then this debate should be blanked for the same reasons, since it largely contains the same information - and I've refactored my comment above to clarify the point. Though, it's generally unwise to underestimate the capacity for human stupidity. As for well-sourced BLPs, I'm all for them. But this article, at the time of the original debate, wasn't one of those - the references were not related directly to the subject, but to the overarching theme of sex offender laws in the United States, and only tangentally touched on the subject's case as an object example of those laws in action. BLP demands rigorous sourcing, and the fact is that more than half of the claims in the article were not sourced with inline citations pointing to sources pertaining specifically to the subject. Rigorous, it ain't. If the AFD were open now, I would probably recommend Move to an article about the court case and its repercussions - but it's not. We're here at DRV to debate whether this article, as it was when deleted, should be restored, and the debate (of more than two months ago) should be reopened. Looking at the debate and the article at that point, I have to say no. With the sources presented here, and the information I see on the intarwebs, I'm sure a neutral article about the court case is possible - but, again, this ain't it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the clarification. I'm of the opinion that we can't fulfill our pillars AND be quite that cautious about the potential for human stupidity--We likely see eye to eye on such capacity, but differ on Wikipedia's appropriate response to it. Likewise, I agree that an article about the legal implications of this case is a better article to have than one merely about Ms. Allison. So given that, and in light of the comments from the DrV opener, are we approaching a consensus that the legal case has sufficient RS'ing (see DGG's comments) to start an article on the case in which Ms. Allison was a defendant, rather than on her as a person? Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • What pillars discuss DRVs and AFDs? What other encyclopedias publish their work pages? Would you expect to be able to search the emails or work-group pages of Britannica writers? Surely not. We blank these discussions because they don't need to be searchable. If an editor wants to look at them, they know how to reach the history tab. Lara 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, Ultraexactzz above say it all, really. Atricle clearly falls within the scope of arbcom BLP ruling that give admins the power to speedy delete. This was both morally and per policy the correct decision. --Scott Mac (Doc) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BLP1E note. I had hoped to keep a BLP1E discussion out until an article with improved sourcing could be worked on. IMO, BLP1E is not applicable. 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. The purpose of BLP1E is to limit dayflies, and events that are not of lasting interest to informed readers.

This event happened way back in 2002. Yet it has been referred to over a span of several years, and the mentioning is far from trivial:

• Southern Center for Human Rights in 2006
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) in 2006
• Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review in 2007
• The Milford Daily News
• USA Today in 2007
• The Forensic psychologist. 2007.
• A TV show (Educational Broadcasting Corporation) 2007
• The Economist in 2009
• Harvard Civil Rights- Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL), (2009 Forthcoming) [4]

This is a fairly diverse crowd that has expressed interest in this case - obviously the case has lasting interest. I agree completely that it is not the person "Janet Allison" that is interesting, it is THE CASE that it interesting. Therefore, the case deserves mention on Wikipedia. Note that the article is about the case, and the subsequent developments in Janet Allison's life (which cannot be separated from the case). I just don't get it how an article that claims something is unjust, unfair etc, can be called an attack page (??) Power.corrupts (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Endorse close. I can't view it, but I remember well enough that it was a negatively written article on a woman notable for a single thing, that while interesting and tragic, is still one thing. Also, it makes no sense to label my argument as IDONTLIKEIT. This is WP:DONTLIKEIT in a nutshell. I had a two-word rationale. "Clear BLP1E." That's BLP1E in a nutshell. My tone comes from your inability to acknowledge the issues being presented, which you continued in this DRV nomination. The most troubling issue however, is that the emergency delete side has really not felt bothered to present arguments. In that you refused to grasp that BLP is a policy and BLP1E is a subsection of that policy, and that this article undoubtedly fits that description, and that you did not attempt to show how it doesn't fit under BLP1E, instead claiming that RS and GNG trump BLP and claiming that delete supporters presented no valid arguments is a most troubling issue. Furthermore, whatever I said in that user talk page discussion is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. My loss of adminship, which had ZERO to do with my use of it, also has nil to do with this AFD. It has been several months. If you wanted an AFD overturned based on procedure, it probably should have been brought to DRV then. After this much time has passed, generally you see userfied articles being presented for approval for mainspace. In this case, the userspace version, while not as negatively-written as the original, still doesn't cite her being notable for anything but this, and she doesn't appear to be vying for attention. So she's a BLP1E case who apparently wishes to stay out of the public eye. The sole claim in the article that could even possibly bring it past BLP1E is not sourced. If her case was affecting law-making decisions in other countries, or even this one for that matter, then you would have historical significance and that would override BLP1E. Reliably source that and you have a valid reason to open a DRV and request approval for the article to be in mainspace.

  That said, it's only effective to quote someone when they've spoken truth. BLP1E is misunderstood by some, I won't argue that; but when an event is notable, we write an article on the event. Lasting interest in someone based on the event doesn't automatically make them notable by Wikipedia's inclusion standards. We can't write a biography based on information from one thing. The sole exception, which is clearly outlined in the policy and I mention above, is historical significance. Lara 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than write a BLP, one wonders whether it would be possible to write an article on "State of Georgia -v- Allison" (or however US legal cases are titled; I don't know). It could be a notable legal case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and strongly recommend courtesy-blanking the AFD and this DRV upon this DRV's closure – clearly a negative-sourced BLP. There are ways to write a BLP, and regarding the current state of that article, that is not how to treat a BLP. (I obviously won't go into details here.) MuZemike 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote above "courtesy blanking" discussions about individuals who have voluntarily sacrificed their privacy in order to be better public advocates for their position is both insulting and a lapse from neutrality. When someone has chosen to sacrifice their privacy when they decided to go public with their advocacy of a particular position then "courtesy blanking" our meta-discussions that mention them is tantamount to lobbying for the other side. Geo Swan (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you citing a content policy for a project space discussion? Lara 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep or at the least allow recreation without prejudice. The retitling proposed by S Marshall seems like a good idea, since the article focuses on the "crime" and its punishment. The RS cited in the last version of the article demonstrated that the conviction and its implications are of general (GNG-satisfying) interest. The cleaned-up version of the article asserted nothing in the article that wasn't backed up by RS'es, although like any such BLP, could have been a magnet for vandalism and irrelevant trivia in the future. BLP1E is not applicable in this case, per WP:WI1E (full disclosure: I am the primary author of that essay). Lastly, it should be pointed out that Lara didn't delete the article, she merely nominated it, participated in AfD, and cleaned it up appropriately during the discussion--Two other admins did the actual deletions, so blaming her for the outcome is a red herring. Bottom line: the article was NOT a BLP violation, in that it did not assert anything unsourced, and it could have been renamed to focus on the event rather than being deleted. While many people chimed in, there is no evidence of reasoned thought in the AfD, merely a mob screaming "BLP bad!" without explaining the policy basis for their decision. The proper rough consensus, on the basis of the AfD discussion, was thus clearly "keep". Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The reasons for BLP1E and emergency deletion of contentious BLPs may have been slightly forgotten over time. Let's do our best not to forget them, please. It's partly about the risk to the project, financial and reputation, and partly also about not being evil. Jimbo sold this one to me with very little effort, and I'd kind of hope that most of us here would also be able to see the bigger picture. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfect example of what I was talking about: an appeal to authority, without any justifiable reason behind it. Guy, do you consider it evil to call a convicted sex offender a convicted sex offender? Is Wikipedia going to be successfully sued by a convicted sex offender because we noted that she had been duly convicted? Go reread WP:BLP, especially the WP:BLPDEL bit, and come back and explain why the article was a risk to the project, the foundation, or was doing harm to a living person, such that the only alternative to correct the issue was deletion, would you? Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means lets protect the project from being sued. By all means lets not be evil by destroying the privacy of individuals who aren't public figures. But suppressing coverage of Mrs A doesn't protect the project and it doesn't protect Mrs A -- because Mrs A made the decision to sacrifice her privacy in order to be a better lobbyist and advocate for reform. True respect for Mrs A would entail respecting her decision to talk about being a registered sex offender on national TV and in interviews in international publications. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm going to say this again although I've always thought of you as one of the good guys. Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech and use of the term "suppression" to describe the inevitable process of self-censorship and editing has always in my experience been associated very strongly with people who mistakenly believe that we are an experiment in free speech - and often also with POV-pushing. Janet Allison is not a public figure in any reaosnable definition of the word. There may well be a case for documenting thisunfortunate case in some way, but a faux-biography which references a single event in her life is not the way to do it. As with all non-public figures, her life story is almost untouched by rliable sources outside of this one event. When she's in her ninteties and her great-great-great grandchildren gather round to hear her life story, they will get it in the round, but Wikipedia will almost certainly still only have a single news story. That's what BLP1E is about. It's about not trying to tease a biography out of the tiny snippets of personal information in news stories that are about an event involving a person, not about the person themselves. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I never got involved in this AfD, but I remember witnessing the situation. The article was one of those more clear violations of BLP1E, and the discussion was destined to snow or simply be closed as "delete", either way you cut it. Tiptoety decided to speed up the proccess by exercising what I consider strong judgement by deleting it early. To be honest, I'm not seeing the purpose of this DRV. The eventual outcome is not being disputed, but instead the method of closure (non-CSD deleting something on-sight). I wouldn't be so affirmative of Tip's action if this was a borderline case. But we must consider, this was not so "borderline": his decision was a smart one. Lara (above) already went into BLP1E and notability standards, so I'm just looking at this from a broad deletion standpoint. Frankly, it is stupid to bicker over process, as long as what was done is right and not out of line of consensus. We pay basic respect to living people by saying "when in doubt, delete" if we can't get the article right. Multiple times I've seen admins "speedy" delete BLPs as gross violations of the policy (see the deletion log, you'll find it), and they have every right to do that—upholding BLP shouldn't be a controversy. It's as fundamental and crucial as neutrality. Unless an admin is actually crossing the line and being too heavy-handed, I applaud those who are willing to step up and get rid of our worst bios. JamieS93 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion -- As I have written elsewhere a strong case exists that this individual was not involved in a "single event" -- so assertions that the article should be deleted under WP:BLP1e are simply not valid. Claims that the article should be deleted under the other clauses of WP:BLP, because it was necessary to protect her privacy as also completely bogus. She was listed in the sex offender registry. She chose to go public, appear on television, speak on panels, be interviewed by magazines like the Economist, with an international reach, because she volunteered to serve as a spokewoman and advocate for those, like her, who ended up being listed as sex offender lists that used overly broad definitions of "sex offender". Her decision to forgo trying to keep her listing private is well documented by the references that show she willing sought out opportunities to make her case to the public. Geo Swan (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - largely per Lara. I'm not seeing any issues with the previous deletion decision here. And yes, clear BLP1E again - Alison ^❤ 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Lara and Scott MacDonald. GlassCobra 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit re-creation BLP is not applicable if the matter is of continuing interest. The reason this is of interest is what is international amazement at the trivial nature of the crime and the effective penalty in this case: I will not restore a BLP article however wrong deleted unless some other admin will support it, but I can link the references: [5] , Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 2007 42: 513 [http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/polisci/articles/20070304.htm. Additional ones are given above, and I add PBD . CBS , ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Nov. 4, 2007, at 6B , and especially 2 academic papers from Harvard Civil Liberties Law Review, SSRN, [6]. Her case is one of the standard examples used is discussing the problem. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, wouldn't you say those sources support creating an article on the legal case rather than on the person? In the current climate on Wikipedia, a BLP about an (unjustly?) convicted sex offender is a conflict trigger, but an article about a legal case seems uncontroversial.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, you're perfectly right and this is a great example of why this distinction is so asinine. Does whether we name the article about the person or the case change its contents? No. Yet somehow, naming it after the case is several orders of magnitude more acceptable. Why? More importantly, per WP:BLPDEL, why wasn't this article just renamed rather than being deleted? Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad that at least a few editors seem to follow my reasoning. The Allison case illuminates principal issues of basic civil right, punitive legal systems, draconian legal measures passed because the issue at face value just seems so right (think BLP), and then we have the unintended consequences, the collateral damage. I never intended this article to be about the person, but an expository vehicle, that could display the issues just mentioned - same way as it was presented in The Economist. If people, especially high profile BLP task force people, cry wolf (or BLP), straight reasoning seems to be impeded. A rename could well be the obvious remedy. I have to leave now and can only comment again tomorrow. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone wants to write the article to be about the case, then they can do that. Simply renaming an article that violates policy isn't acceptable. For someone who keeps tossing around NPOV in relation to project space, maybe take a moment to consider it in relation to article space, considering that's what it's applicable to. The deleted version was not neutral. Case articles and "biographies" are very different articles, not just in title, but in their content. Lara 23:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lara, you have been one of the most vociferous proponents for deletion, it was speedied only 5 minutes after your ASAP request [7]. While technically you didn't wield the axe yourself, (as the AfD nominee this would be highly inappropriate), you actions certainly were decisive for the speedy. Not sure whether to read your comments to suggest that I'm pushing POV. Your comments that there is "no justifiable reason to leave that shameful mess in public reach" [8] are both unsubstantiated and show that if anybody pushes POV, it's you. You keep dodging requests for arguments. For BLP emergency deletion on sight you need to demonstrate 1) harm and that 2) statements are unsourced. Ad 1) please care to explain how this article does harm to a living person, when it is rather clear that the subject reasonably wants greater publicity on this issue. Ad 2) please pinpoint exactly which of the article's statements that are not firmly rooted in RS. No more vague appeals to authority, our cherished "policies", please, provide a solid rationale. To allow non-admins to view the article and base their opinion on facts and not assumptions, I sought to recreate an anonymized version, see link in my overturn rationale. It is not exactly the version that was up for AfD (I can't access it either), but it should be good enough for you to answer those questions. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't responding to you, which was obvious before you changed the indentation of my post. That said, I'm going to have this be my last response to you, because I generally don't do well to deal with people who use selective reading techniques. I cannot make BLP1E lacking historical significance more clear. Deny the validity of my policy-based argument all you want, but stop saying I'm not making one. Furthermore, I already read your rationale, read your "anonymized" version (which includes her name, by the way, so you failed at making it anonymous), and commented on it in my endorse rationale. I do not support the existence of this article unless you can establish historical significance through reliable sources. I do, however, support S Marshall writing an article on the case and this page becoming fully protected redirect. Lara 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are a master of evasive action, but I'm sure you know that BLP1E has NOTHING to do with this, your ASAP emergency deletion request was based on BLP. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close and deletion per the many well stated BLP1E mentions above. If there's new material, resources, and circumstances in the future which support a recreation of the article - I'd be happy to look at the article at that time. Feel free to ping me. — Ched :  ?  18:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, nothing to suggest deletion was out of processes or erroneous. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So you agree that the articles does harm and qualifies for emergency BLP deletion without broader community discussion? Power.corrupts (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Jamie and Ched. NW (Talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of this clear WP:BLP1E. Now, if we had an article on Criticism of sex offender registration laws in the United States, or a section to that effect in another article, some mention of this case might be justified. But that, not Allison, is the real subject of the articles that mention this unfortunate case. *** Crotalus *** 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as premature close and relist. Arguments that it is such as gross BLP violation as to be speedied are contradicted by the arguments above--if there is serious dispute between established WPedians using arguments with some basis in policy that a speedy criterion applies, then the criterion does not. If people in good faith are willing to argue it is not BLP, there must be a discussion that lasts the full time so consensus can be judged. (this was hardly an emergency situation--a true emergency BLP will not get the opposition this one has--I have speedied some myself to prevent ongoing harm). Any argument that it was a justified SNOW have been clearly contradicted above--there is no actual almost-unanimity--the early close merely prevented them from being properly argued in the first place at the proper venue. As for the issue, it is is not BLP. Arguments that this is covered by the need of sources for a BLP were wrong--the sources were very adequate; arguments based on ONEEVENT or NOTNEWS are contradicted by the facts shown in the sources; arguments based on do no harm also do not apply--as ought to have been obvious to anyone who read the article & the sources. GeoSwan makes a good case that it might be the other way around. For that matter, attempts to use rapid procedures without the necessary almost complete consensus are often counter-productive by the Streisand effect--the more difficult the matter is, the more it should go the time. BTW, andy arguments that we can not discuss the actual issues at DRV are obviated by the fact that arb com has prescribed this as the proper venue after a BLP speedy. True, the DRV should have been earlier, but it is never too late to correct mistakes--and in any case, some of the law review articles are just appearing now--and the usual course of academic events is that they will produce future articles, either in support or rebuttal. Atthis point, though, the simplest course might be GeoSwan's intention to rewrite: a legal case commented on my multiple scholarly articles and by the general press is notable, and an article on it would have to be judged on its own merits. The application of BLP to that would mean we could never write on a legal case based on sexual abuse, which is a good example of sweeping matters under the carpet, usually called CENSORship. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist or allow recreation as article about the case. I think early close cut off any chance of fixing/reworking the article into something more acceptable and therefore should be overturned... or if the content are really that offensiv' (I position I don't agree with, but can see being held in good faith) restore the content to a noindexed page and allow it to be fixed there. Either outcome has the same practical effect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I frankly do not know whether the deleted version is poorly sourced or not. The question is moot anyways. I do not think, however, that a close merely 13 hours after an AfD nomination can form a valid, binding, consensus on the question whether this is BLP1E, since half of the people in the world may not get to comment. AfDs last 7 days for a reason. Permit recreation of a well-sourced draft, without prejudice to a subsequent AfD on the BLP1E question. Personally, I think the retitling suggested by S Marshall is most sensible. Tim Song (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and deletion if my memory serves me, this article had serious violations of BLP, including details of stay away orders, which i argued should not be in WP unless they are spelled out in precise detail, with dates of starting and stopping, and continuous monitoring. i dont remember it reading like a legal case that became precedent. unless this is a seriously important precedent, or unless there was much more to the event than i recall reading here, i would respect the admin who closed and deleted, esp if the consensus, including the original creators comments, pointed towards a well argued delete, which i beleive it did. if someone wants to try to recreate a legal article from the original content, stripped of BLP issues (IF POSSIBLE), they can request a copy of the article, can they not? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the discussion was pretty darn clear. But allow recreation ideally as something other than a BLP per S Marshall. It is the case that is important, not her per se. Unless the article was truly horrible, I think using it as a starting point would be fine. I'd have !voted to keep based on the sources, but the article itself might have warranted deletion based on BLP issues. I can't see it so I don't know. But the topic is clearly notable. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion would have been much less clear had it been allowed to continue beyond 13 hours.John Z (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have strongly preferred it stayed open, but closing it was probably within admin discretion due to BLP issues and the strong !vote at that point. In anycase, I'd prefer to have an article about the event rather than the subject (with a redirect from subject to article of course). Hobit (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as premature or Allow re-creation per DGG, Geo Swan, Jclemens, et al. It is remarkable that those wanting deletion stress the aim of our policy of "avoiding harm", when it is rather clear that the subject reasonably wants greater publicity, and deletion of a sourced article would be more reasonably interpreted as harm. This was a clearly unnecessarily hasty deletion; whatever problems the article had did not merit speedy deletion. The simpler and quicker course would be to fix the article. IIRC I was in the process of writing a "keep" and preparing to work on the article when the debate was prematurely closed. BLP1e policy is clearly not intended or written to apply to cases like these which have become causes celebre and have many sources about them, sufficiently many were in the article already. The title of the article is secondary, the content would be essentially the same.John Z (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  BLP1E was written specifically for these cases. Where there are many sources, we write on the event. How many sources are about her unrelated to this case? Lara 15:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Which seems all well and good, but I still haven't seen any evidence of anyone pursuing any alternatives to deletion, BLP-specific or general, before rushing the close. Hasty deletion isn't, and shouldn't be, the first resort. Just because we have "nuclear options" for BLP issues doesn't mean that they need to be used in every case. If there's any common thread amongst those opposed to the outcome, that would seem to be it. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Lara is right that BLP1e does take such cases into consideration, although they are not the focus of the policy. What I should have said is that deletion is not at all what BLP1e suggests. "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." Precisely because of the lack of sources unrelated to the case, an article on the case/event would be the same as the biographical article. The only difference would be the title. There was no essential wrongness in the article, no "gross BLP violation" or even any real BLP issue, as it had fine sources and just needed some cleanup. No reason whatseover to go out of the normal process and close so early.John Z (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - nothing out of process here. DRV is not AfD take 2. Eusebeus (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion perfectly reasonable deletion of a BLP problem article. RMHED (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the BLP problem?John Z (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted repeatedly, the article was negatively written. At the time of the AFD, all these sources citing the case either didn't exist or were not in the article, and as noted in the AFD, I believe, it was stated that if it could be demonstrated that the case was worthy of an article, that could be written. But your comment just above that the article on the case would be the same as the biographical article except for the title is completely inaccurate. Biographical articles and legal articles are not the same by any means. Swapping the title on the article as it was at the time of that AFD would not have been acceptable. At the time of the AFD, it was a terribly written, non-neutral "biography" on a woman notable only for being convicted of sex crimes when she hadn't actually done anything. In the infobox, IIRC, her "known for" was "sex crimes" or "sex offender". Something like that. I can't go back to double-check, but I'm about 90% sure on that. At the time of the AFD, it was a clear BLP1E, and the imbalance and negative aspects of the article, in my opinion, and apparently that of the admin who closed it (and others here agree), a SNOW close per BLP was appropriate. Lara 15:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Known For field was "Controversially convicted Sex offender", as you indicate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra, now you take care to look, all claims were soundly backed by RS, right? And there were no negative aspects in the article text, insofar as a claim of miscarriage of justice is not interpreted as negative. The article did no harm, this is the core argument here. Harm is the only acceptable justification for en emergency delete and this was clearly not met. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of those points in my comments on this page, above. Unfortunately, all of the claims in the article were not properly sourced, in that they were not backed by inline citations linking to reliable sources that specifically discuss the subject. The four sources in the article (at the time it was nominated) were about Sex Offender Laws in the United states, and specifically about the problems with those laws, and used Ms. Allison as an object example of the application of those laws. They were not about Ms. Allison specifically. BLP very clearly requires rigorous sourcing, and the article did not have it. Sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:BLP requiring inline citations. Am I missing it, is it codified elsewhere, or is this your personal expectation? Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such, no - but WP:V does. The unfortunately-named shortcut WP:PROVEIT points to the "Burden of Evidence" section, which specifies that controversial material "...must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." BLP's requirement is much simpler - "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what was challenged in the article, other than the article in its entirety? In the version that exists immediately prior to deletion, every fact (and just about every sentence) is sourced, mostly to USA Today. I'd really like someone to show me point-by-point either what should have been changed (aside from the title) about the article, or what was specifically a BLP violation in the article. I'll email a copy to any non-admin who wants to help out on this one. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming very, very specific. Ultra, I asked if "all claims were soundly backed by RS, right?". Your answer that there were no inline citations. So, implictly you accept that all claims were backed by RS, but the were not backed by inline citations. A finesse for feinschmeckers, and what a monumental difference. I cant check, but I believe I had only inline citations, not each and every sentence of course. What matters though is that sources were bountifull, Economist, Harward review, USA Today, and several others - I am quite sure it had more four references when I defended it at AfD. Did somebody remove some references? Above all, I like not to lose sight of the greater goals of BLP, which are to protect the privacy of living persons -- and when the subject of the article has chosen to go public with the case to fight for reform, it is rather clear that the subject reasonably wants greater publicity, not less. Your upholding of rigorous requirements for inline citations to protect the privacy of the subject seem myopic in that context. The central question is if the article did harm, and I contend it didn't. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is a gross misinterpretation of policy to say that lack of inline citations for unchallenged material - and when they are present for other material - is a reason for speedy deletion in a BLP. WP:V even does not strictly require inline citations - it also says other methods may be acceptable, in a footnote. This unworkable, hyperbureaucratic interpretation putting form above substance would make any BLP or other article deletable immediately. You wouldn't need to vandalize it by removing inline cites - all you have to do is add accurate and sourceable, but unsourced material.John Z (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Lara's claim, above, and elsewhere, that the original article was "negatively written" -- no offense but this assertion is unsupported, and I believe unsupportable. There is no topic we can't cover from a neutral point of view, provided we have good, reliable, authoritative, verifiable references. We have excellent references in this case. And since Mrs A chose to be completely candid in her many interviews about the details in her case, it is frankly insulting to claim neutral, non-sensational coverage of details she volunteered to make public, over and over again, in interviews that spanned years of time, is "negative" writing. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I submit that not every BLP highlights the fact that the subject is a sex offender, barred by the court from seeing their children (and a grandchild), and is guilty of a form of child molestation. I'm not saying that a lack of inline citations is a reason for deletion - but, when the sources do not pertain specifically to the subject, the lack of inline citations tells me that the sourcing isn't up to snuff. It's one of several factors that would have led me to recommend Delete during the original debate, and that leads me to recommend that the deletion be endorsed now. You'll also note that I recommend a new article be posted about the court case, since - as you note - sources do exist. The article had four - one each from the Economist, USA Today, Forensic Psychologist, and Harvard Law Review. None were about the subject exclusively - most focused on the case, or on sex offender law in general. Which doesn't cut it for a BLP - but could work for an article about the case, which I concur would be a valid article (below). Power.corrupts, as the author of the original article, would that work for you? I note you haven't yet commented, and I'd like to know what your take would be. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had access to the deleted version, you would see that each of those potentially-BLP-infringing aspects you highlighted are covered in roughly the same detail in the USA Today article. Yes, the USA Today article wasn't just about her, but since it was long and the article on Allison was short, it amounted to equivalent coverage. Remember, BLP applies to things that are negative and unsourced. These were negative and perfectly reliably sourced. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep or at the least allow recreation without prejudice. per above. I grow weary of the slippery slope arguments that editors use. Ikip (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you specify which editor is using a 'slippery slope argument'? You're the only one to use that particular term on this talk page. I've glanced at most of the arguments in favour of endorsing the deletion and none of them appear to be using a slippery slope argument. While I sometimes see editors arguing the deletion of a BLP sets a slippery slope I'm not seeing that here either Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen as speedy deletion was unnecessary and out of process. However, couldn't the case be briefly mentioned in Laws regarding child sexual abuse#In the United States? I'm not sure the case is hugely notable, it's covered briefly along with other cases in a mere seven news articles and two scholarly articles that I can find. The wider story is Georgia trying to in effect expel all its registered sex offenders in 2006 using the House Bill 1059,[9] which hasn't been written about on Wikipedia yet despite being notable.[10] A related case in Georgia was Wilson v. State of Georgia. Fences&Windows 21:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! This Wilson case was also mentioned in the Economist, exactly an article I thought of creating. Phenomenal story about consensual sex amongst teens -- a stupidity, and you are burn-marked for life. I was owerwhelmed by the flak the JA article attracted, and distracted by private committments. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh sorry, now checking, it was 17 year old female, name also starting with "W" and having an "i" in it, but same misery. Was in "Unjust and ineffective". Economist, 00130613, 8/8/2009, Vol. 392, Issue 8643. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I'm not an admin and don't believe I ever read the article before. However from what I've read here, it seems clear the article had serious unresovable issues which was brough up in the AFD leading to the snowball delete. While under the conditions, perhaps it would have been okay to let the AFD run it's course that doesn't mean the close was premature or needs to be overturned. In fact, it seems that this was both within policy and supported by the AFD therefore there's no legitimate reason to overturn the decision. While this isn't another AFD, what I've seen suggests to me there is little merit at the current time for the recreation of the article on Janet Allison. There may however be merit for an article on the case and/or mention of her in some article related to sex offender registry controversies/law. However these are and should be quite different from an article on her, and anyone who doesn't understand that should take great care if they intend to involve themselves in the writing of such an article since they could easily inadvertedly violate policy. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification please -- Okay, you didn't read the original article, before it was deleted. Neither did I. From what you wrote above however, it sounds like you made multiple comments here without showing the initiator of this DRV the courtesy of reading the draft prepared that addressed some of the issues, like lack of inline citations, mentioned in the {{afd}}. If you really didn't read User:Power.corrupts/Sandbox/JA first, do you think there might be some value in reading it now? Geo Swan (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]