Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Mary Nolan (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete all. Consensus is that these women are only notable for their one conviction, and that WP:BLP1E applies.  Sandstein  06:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bridget Mary Nolan
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A well written and factually correct article, however this person is a non-notable criminal who was sentenced to a suspended sentence only of two years and four months. Made plenty of news headlines at the time however this article fails on notability grounds. Longhair\talk 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
 * - Sentenced to 4 years
 * - Sentenced to 2 years 8 months
 * - Sentenced to 2 years
 * - Sentenced to 5 years


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Longhair\talk 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete It reads like a newspaper article rather than an article belonging in an encyclopedia. While not dismissing the seriousness of her crimes, I would suggest that there are BLP concerns with creating an article on an otherwise non-notable person who has not even been subjected to a custodial sentence.  Further, there are elements of WP:COATRACK where the article expands into sex offences by female teachers.  Also, there seems to have been a category created called Category:Australian statutory rapists, containing a list of about five similar offences.  I have never heard the term "statutory rape" in an Australian context.  I would delete this article, delete the category and delete all the articles populating the category. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC) UPDATE: To confirm since the additions delete all -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge It's unfortunate the main nom takes the only one who wasn't given a significant jail sentence, and then uses her suspended sentence as an argument for deleting all of them! Probably the best thing is to merge them into a group article. I don't feel comfortable voting that whatever you do to an under-age Australian boy you won't be notable. If not merged, keep. Johnbod (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A Wikipedia article is not some form of additional punishment to be imposed on offenders. It is not our place to try and impose some version of Megan's Law. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Courts in Australia are open to the public, so Megan's Law isn't relevant. All this information is readily available through Google anyway. Assize (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

**NOTE FOR CLOSING ADMIN: These people are all the articles listed on Category:Australian statutory rapists which is nominated in Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 30. Please deal with that as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Wikinews is the next door on the left. They were cases that interested the media as they were unusual, and have prurient interest. None of the criminals are notable beyond the crime and sentence.- Peripitus (Talk) 09:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment all these women are convicted of "statutory rape", i.e. having sexual intercourse with a minor (who is legally unable to consent). I doubt that the individual convicts are notable in their own right but the subject of statutory rape is notable.  Suggest merge all together into Australian Statutory Rape (or perhaps some other existing article on this), but greatly trim: details of what they claimed at their trials are non-encylopaedic news.  A brief statement of the offence they were convicted of, including the attitude of the other participant might be worth having, but certainly not at the present length.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree the subject of sexual abuse of children is an encyclopedic topic, I am not sure there is an offence called "statutory rape" in Australia. There is already perfectly fine articles on Child sexual abuse and Sexual harassment in education, which focus on the phenomenon and are not mere lists of incidents. Any attempt to create an article such as List of persons who have sexually abused children in Australia, which seems to be what you are suggesting, still would not be encyclopedic. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The trends in the sentencing are themselves a matter of encyclopedic interest, and for that at least some detail of the offences is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reporting on 5 cases will not give a trend in sentencing - serious research is needed for that. Peripitus (Talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not merge, lists of cases are not encyclopedic content and trying to make conclusions from lists of cases in a overview article would be original research. If sources exist that analyze this subject in general, they can be used to write a general article, specific cases could be used as examples in such an article, but cannot be used on their own. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is enough secondary material out there to justify either a biography or an article on the crime. Falls clearly with WP:N as being entitled to remain. This particular case continues to come up time after after time in the press, which demonstrates that it is not WP:ONEEVENT. Not much has changed since the last AfD. If the article reads like a newspaper article, then be bold and change it and improve it. Assize (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:BLP1E. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How does this actually breach WP:BLP1E? It is not a separate biography to a main article on the crime. It is well referenced. The person is the major person involved in the incident. If anything, the article should cover the incident rather than the person, but that is not a ground for deletion. Assize (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the cited reasons remove the wp:blp1e problem. Although I usually I'm a proponent of moving these bios to the "event", in this case I don't feel the events are that notable. I guess I can only speak for the US, but here, these stories pop up every once in awhile, the tabloids have a little run with it, and then it's completely forgotten about. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What is the actual wp:blp1e problem, so that it can be addressed. Just because these types of cases are "common" in the US doesn't mean that they are not notable in Australia. The sources demonstrate that it is notable in Australia, and not just in one city. There is nothing in WP:N that says only some types of crimes are notable. Assize (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The BLP1E problem is thus: "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." While this is not an exact fit to the situation here the principle is the same; the privacy of non-public people should be protected and abuse of that privacy elsewhere doesn't justify us taking firther measures to erode rhat privacy. WP:BLP1E is designed to apply where a subject may meet WP:N but creating an article is still a bad idea. This particularly applies where a subject is notable for a negative event. There is not just a legal obligation to deal fairly with such people but a moral obligation as well. A quote I found and support: "I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened." Note, the fact that the same infomation is available elsewhere does not mean that there is no consequence for including the same information here. Information on Wikipedia is much more easily found than searching back through court records or old newspapers. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how BLP1E applies, so I guess we differ, and I say WP:NPF applies. There are no defamatory statements made, article is written in mostly neutral tone, and is factual. The internet has changed how long information is kept. It's a fact of life. Stopping Wikipedia isn't going to change that at all. Assize (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for all per WP:ONEEVENT. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All per WP:ONEEVENT. No need to engage in publishing negative biographies when the notability of these people is marginal at best.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:22, 6 July 2008 (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.