Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Allen


 * 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   Snowball keep per consensus. Problems addressed are reasons to clean up, not to delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob Allen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Up front, I'll admit that this is quite likely a borderline nomination, and maybe even against the letter of BLP policy, but I just feel this kind of article, essentially a public shaming of an otherwise barely notable living person (ex-member of a U.S. State House of Representatives (not the US House)), distills much of what is wrong in how Wikipedia handles BLP's. I'm recommending deletion, either as not notable, or (if that doesn't gain consensus), WP:IAR: deletion improves the encyclopedia (by making it more professional). IMHO, a policy that says this article should be here is a bad policy and needs to be changed. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not borderline, clearly notable per our guidelines and seems well-referenced as far as the material which might be considered objectionable. He is notable even without this incident so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply. Drawn Some (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that his successor, the current representative of his district, doesn't have an article. Does being an ex-state representative confer notability, or was it the solicitation? I suppose this has no bearing, per WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXISTYET, but it makes me wonder if there would be an article at all, without the solicitation charge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you write one? We don't question why articles exist, only whether or not they should be allowed to exist.  If all the articles with self-serving motivations for creation were eliminated from Wikipedia there would be about 3,000 articles left instead of 3,000,000. Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't understand why this is an AfD nomination. He was a state rep, and therefore qualifies WP:Politician criteria 1, especially per the footnote: This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless. If there is a unreferenced negative BLP vio, then that stuff needs to be taken off, but everything appears to be sourced. If neutrality is in dispute, it needs to be fixed or taken to WP:BLPN. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep --- I think membership (even past) in a major state's legislature makes you notable. I have deleted some unsourced attacks and edited the article to give it some balance as opposed to being dominated by a single event. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is a bit of a BLP mess, but this is a fix-it job, not a delete-it job.  Steve Crossin   Talk/Help us mediate! 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I've done some cleanup to the article, it's a little better now. Steve Crossin   Talk/Help us mediate! 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep What is said in the article can be discussed, but a member of a state legislature is notable. Given that he resigned after conviction for a minor crime, I cannot see how appropriate mention of the matter can possibly be a BLP violation. It would be totally different if he were a private citizen, not an elected official. DGG (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.