User:Geo Swan/review/Janet Allison

Janet Allison had an article on the wikipedia. It was nominated for deletion on August 17th, speedy deleted, about six hours later, as a WP:BLP1e. The (first) deleting administrator subsequently reverted their deletion after the person who started the article made a long, and apparently convincing defense -- convincing enough to get the {{afd}} re-instated.

A second administrator deleted the article seven hours later. Normally {{afd}} are active for seven days. This {{afd}} was active for less than thirteen hours.

I left a couple of comments on the talk page of the second administrator. I asked some questions and indicated my concerns over the appearance of a lack of open-ness and transparency in the speedy deletion of the article after less than thirteen hours. Several other contributors voiced similar concerns. The administrator didn't explicitly respond to any of those questions or concerns, other than to state: "DRV may be a more appropriate venue at this point.

In the {{afd}} it seemed to me all those expressing a delete opinion cited the WP:BLP1e portion of WP:BLP. I didn't see anyone voice a delete there because they thought the article slandered her.

In the discussion on the deleting administrator's talk page the last comments from the person who nominated the article for deletion asserted that the article was damaging to Allison -- [1], [2]. I won't state why they argue the article was damaging to Allison. But I will list references to her, that span at least two and a half years. Since Allison granted an interview, broadcast across the USA, where she candidly described how she came to be classified, I am mystified how the nominator can claim it is necessary for the wikipedia to suppress coverage of how she was classified -- to protect her reputation. If Allison chooses to describe the classification on a national TV broadcast I think it is a misapplication of BLP to suppress that material.

I found references that weren't in the article, including the PBS interview with her. I suggest this is one of the reasons why {{afd}}s should be allowed to run the full seven days -- unless there is some exceptional circumstance. And no exceptional circumstance existed in this case.

WP:BLP protects individuals from slander and protects the wikipedia from being sued for slander. The authorization in the policy for administrators to delete slanderous material on sight makes sense to me. Real slander has serious consequences for the slandered, and potentially for the project too.

WP:BLP also has a section devoted to WP:BLP1e -- articles about individuals "known only for 'one event'..." Does it make sense to speedy delete an article because it seems like the individual is only known for "one event"? Sometimes it takes time to do enough research to really determine if the individual is known for two, three or several dozen events.

Thirteen hours wasn't enough time. No one argued in the {{afd}} the article damaged her.

The woman is not just notable for the charges she faced. She has chosen to become an advocate for those who face those kinds of charges when they are baseless, or feel they are exaggerated.

• "America's unjust sex laws". The Economist. 2009-08-06. Archived from the original on 2009-08-20.
• Wendy Koch (2007-02-25). "Sex-offender residency laws get second look". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2009-08-20.
• Joe Windish (2009-08-12). "The Economist on America's Harsh & Indiscriminate Sex-Offender Laws". The Moderate Voice. Archived from the original on 2009-08-20.
• "Georgia Sex Offender Law". Religion and Ethics Weekly. 2007-01-26. Archived from the original on 2009-08-20. Episode=1022
• "Kicking Sex Offenders Off The Internet?". CBS News. 2009-08-13. Archived from the original on 2009-08-20.
• Lauren Fitzpatrick (2007-08-27). "Laws end up hurting the not-so-dangerous". Metro West Daily. Archived from the original on 2009-08-20.
• "America's unjust sex laws". Citizens for change America. 2011-09-11. Retrieved 2011-10-18. How dangerous are the people on the registries? A state review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of them posed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being "party to the crime of child molestation" because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publicly branded as a sex offender. mirror