Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial cases involving sex offenses


 * 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. The arguments for keep do not address the WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP issues. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. v/r - TP 18:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversial cases involving sex offenses

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable -- he is certainly not a "notable sex offender", and he's not notable as a campaigner, either. Just a guy trying to live his life and resolve an unwise decision made when young. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC) :Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re your second sentence, FR might just as well prefer publicity for the cause of his removal from the sex offender lists. WP provides neither publicity nor privacy, only accuracy and discriminateness. In those interests, I replaced the category "Sex crimes" with Category:Statutory rapists, as the former specifically states to not use it on BLP articles. Anarchangel (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a fake biography—there is no record of birth date or place, occupation, or achievements. The article and each of its 8 references make it totally clear that the person is not notable—he is known only for one event. The fact that a particular individual fell foul of a legal quandary is gossip, and not of encyclopedic interest. What is encyclopedic is the fact that certain laws lead to controversial results, and there should be an article on that topic which may well mention this incident. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you realize that there are extenuating circumstances to your definition of this article as ONEEVENT, or you would not have continued to "legal quandary", and "controversial results". So, yes, ideally we could have a Disparity of age requirement for statutory rape debate article, and this person and event would be the sole examples. There are only three examples given in the larger context provided by the statutory rape article. But this would seem to be impractical. Anarchangel (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and eventually merge, once an appropriate destination can be found. Merging would be appropriate because there is a lack of much expandability of this stub article due to the limited amount of reliably sourced information available about Rodriguez. I do not think deletion would be appropriate, because the media found his story notable, and we usually follow their lead. Maybe it could become a section in an article of controversial cases involving sex offenses. We could move the article to that title and expand it to include other cases. There are organizations like Reform Sex Offender Laws, Women Against Registry, Sex Offender Solutions & Education Network, etc. whose newsletters provide links to news articles on these sorts of cases, so that could be a starting point for this research. Actually, now that I think about it, there are a lot of court cases that appear in the Criminal Law Reporter pertaining to controversies surrounding the sex offender laws. It might take awhile to build this house, but there's enough material out there that it can be done. Leucosticte (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There could be a merge to Statutory rape, but I do not trust much in the tender mercies of editors there. It would not last a year. Anarchangel (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't last beyond the end of this AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Most times, I am pleased to read anything you write, including non sequiturs, Uncle G. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You actually just argued that this should be kept because it's a content fork above his comment, if you think about what you said closely... I don't think you're helping your case by jumping down everyone's throat here... Carrite (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not building a house at all. You're taking the entirely wrongheaded approach of thinking that an encyclopaedia has present things like this in the form of biographies.  See the big green box at Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23 for the error in that.  You don't even get to claim that you're following where the sources have led.  The principal source here,, actually spends half the article talking about the law in general and a reform movement, and a subordinate source, , states outright that this is an "anecdote" that is "part of a larger story".  This is at most a footnote or an example in a discussion of sex offender registration. It's amazing and saddening that you thought that writing one-thing biographies was a way to expand our coverage of sex offender registries and the debate over reforming them in the United States.  It's extremely disappointing that you didn't think "What on Earth am I doing?" when you decided not only to write a one-thing biography of a living person when you had sources telling you that this was an anecdotal example, but to write that as a biographical article with "(sex offender)" in the title when the sources told you the disputed nature of this label for this person.  This is a quite wrongheaded approach to encyclopaedia writing.  Don't stuff everything into biographies.  Don't even make collections of such anecdotes and hope that encyclopaedic coverage will arise by magic of its own accord once you've added enough of them. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The big green box can be better summarized with another link: WP:ONEEVENT. So what? The article can clearly be written either as a bio or an issue. Half of a four page news article (Pesta/Marie Claire) on the larger issue, and half on a biography? Sounds like significant coverage for either to me. I do not even understand what you are getting at with the criticism of the 'larger story' wording in Friedersdorf/The Atlantic. That wording is yet more evidence that the sources support both a bio and a discussion of the larger issue. I agree that Wikipedia's mission is to report on the controversy surrounding their required display, but never your assertion that Wikipedia's mission is to itself simultaneously sew as many Scarlet Letters on as possible. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have just incorrectly attributed your own assertion to me. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Touche. I'll agree that it was rhetorical assertion, but it gets a bit too much traction to be entirely a straw man, if I do say so myself. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep She was only 15, but he was only 19, freshman and senior, and then they got married...Mr. R. is indeed a "notable sex offender" in that he has been punished as one, while common sense must lead us to ponder whether he is one...And the article has the nine or more national news stories to prove it, including an interview the couple did with the Today (NBC program), which I can assure you many campaigners would not disdain. Jamie Lynn Spears was 16 and the father of her child, 18, and the most they could be prosecuted for is a misdemeanor, but so far the authorities have lacked the nerve. Anarchangel (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Move to Frank and Nikki Rodriguez. Per Uncle G. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the Biographies of living persons policy, this is a highly inappropriate way to write about what the sources were actually discussing; which was sex offender registration in the United States and one of the (several, different) groups of people who would have it further reformed, with this "anecdote" as merely a case in point. Delete.  Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the sources can support either substantial coverage of the larger issue or a biography. They show no interest whatever in discussing registration, outside of delineating the limits of its good practice. Anarchangel (talk)
 * This feels more like an essay rather than an article. I'm not sure it belongs on Wikipedia on that ground, especially since there's no particular reason why the two men's stories are linked together in one article like this. This is not a very good example of a biography and it feels more like an essay on sex offender registration laws or newspaper editorial on the same than an encyclopedia article. DrPhen (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Whilst I was composing my opinion here, the article's creator renamed the article. Invoking the Biographies of living persons policy, I have used my administrator tools to delete the redirects that were left behind, and have used the ordinary edit and rename tools to update all incoming links, the AFD discussion notice, and the title of this AFD discussion page, to reflect the article renaming and to excise the old article title. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Nor a valid list. Carrite (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's all do that Crazy Hand Wave. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that comment was pretty fucking obscure, I must say. I'll file that under Obscure retorts involving fairly straightforward comments at AfD along with some other vaguely related example. That'd be at least as solid in WP notability terms as this piece... Carrite (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongest Delete First, clearly a WP:COATRACK. BLP issues abound.  This article is basically a list too, and it fails per WP:LIST and is also WP:LISTCRUFT.  List inclusion is vague, because 'controversial' is a relative term.  Even sex offenses is a somewhat relative term.  What is a 'case?'  A court case?  An event where the courts weren't involved?  Essentially unlimited and unmaintainable and could be difficult to verify.Roodog2k (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I love WP:VAGUEWAVEs; assertions require nothing more than contradictions: 1. Not. 2. Don't. 3. Isn't and doesn't and isn't. The rest of your arguments I will leave for others to read; I doubt my abilities to make more humorous what is already quite funny haplessness or disingenuity, I make no claim of knowing which. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Did I meantion WP:SOAPBOX? Article as an agenda beyond the intended subject of the article.  That's why I said it was a coatrack. Roodog2k (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a COATRACK because it is a SOAPBOX? Perhaps it is strategically just as well that half your arguments are unsupported. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only haplessness and disingenuity I see is interlacing your comments with statements I made, after-the-fact, to make it appear I was responding to you, when I was not. Roodog2k (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, but my indentation was faulty, I agree. My apologies. I have put an extra asterisk, to indent my statement as I had intended. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The applicable list inclusion criteria don't seem vague at all. Don't we usually rely on reliable sources to indicate what the facts are? Thus, if the reliable sources say it's a controversial case, then would we not conclude that it is suitable for inclusion in a list of, or article about, controversial cases, assuming notability requirements are met? Also, what constitutes a "sex offense" is clearly and explicitly defined by statute in most jurisdictions, because they use those definitions to determine who gets put on the registries, and for other purposes. See for example Ohio Code 2907.10. I don't see the tone as soapboxing at all; the article merely states facts, including the facts about what opinions are being propagated. Granted, there might be some legitimate undue weight concerns at this time. Leucosticte (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The list criteria is based on opinion. 'Controversial' is opinion-based.  What's controversial to some is not to others.  A sex offense does not need to include arrests.  It could include cases where NO arrest was made.  That's also another matter of opinion.  What's a sex offense in one state is not in others.  What's a sex offense in one country is not in others.  The definitions of inclusion are extremely soft.  Now, this smacks of soapboxing, because the focus of the article is actually people who are registered sex offenders and maybe they shouldn't be.  This is another matter of opinion.  It's a coatrack, because the article is really about people who shouldn't be on sex offender lists (in someone's opinion), but they are.Roodog2k (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; I do not care for "controversial", either. However, what has been done during this AfD only shows how easy that would be to reverse. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly annoyed comment: it really makes a hash of an AfD when someone moves an article while the AfD is underway. I hope it won't matter, in the sense that this absurd article ends up being deleted whatever name it's under.  But other contributors should note that I started an AfD on an article regarding an individual, and that article was then moved, hence the shift in the discussion above.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If one waits till the AfD is over to move an article in an effort to help address the reasons why people want to delete an article, then the opportunity might be lost due to a deletion decision that bars posting the content anew. Leucosticte (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I believe that that sort of move during AfD is against policy.Roodog2k (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Leucosticte (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Watch the snark, please. You didn't break any bright-line policy, but this is poor etiquette. See Guide to deletion. Moving an article at AFD is a pretty radical step, and it shouldn't be done without loud, clear disclosure. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think BDD said it better than I had. As move, rename, merge, etc. are valid responses to an AfD, renaming the page in the middle of the vote isn't the best thing to do.  It sort of breaks the process, as it invalidates the votes prior to the move/rename. I was thinking of the policy that states that you can't userfy a page during an AfD discussion. Roodog2k (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguably any change made to an article during AfD that is relevant to issues people have objected to potentially "invalidates" those early votes. It could have been left at the old title, but it seemed like some people were of the opinion that the BLP issues pertaining to the title were in urgent need of being addressed. I guess it was a kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of situation. Leucosticte (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking matters of degree, it depends on what changes, how much it changes, etc. Near Vertical Incidence Skywave was once listed once in an AfD.  The way the article was written, it looked bogus.  In fact, NVIS is notable, so I did a major clean-up of the article, after the article was getting delete votes.  But, I made sure I made a comment to its AfD, so everybody could know what it was they were voting on and no one would be confused. Articles for deletion/Near Vertical Incidence Skywave. Changing the name or moving the article is a radical enough change that at the very least, that change should have been clearly noted here. Roodog2k (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I confess that my failure to move the AfD page when I moved the article was a shocking display of wikindolence. It won't happen again. Leucosticte (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AHEM! As the original author of the Guide to deletion and one of the people who worked on the AFD templates years ago specifically so that articles could be renamed without breaking the AFD notice, as they used to, I point out that this action is not a policy violation. Addressing concerns whilst the AFD discussion proceeds is not a bad thing, either, and whilst I strongly condemn the writing biographies approach, I commend Leucosticte for the renaming, to address the severe titling problem, which I noted here so that my actions were explained, as I am a participant in an AFD discussion who is using administrator tools.  Let's get back to the article at hand, rather than a meta-discussion of the AFD discussion, now, please. Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad Roodog2k (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, then: it should still be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * delete; hideous soapbox. Quite frankly, an illogical one, too - find me a sex offense case that is not controversial, please? Ironholds (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One definition of controversial is "contentious; causing or likely to cause an argument." So, suppose a person rapes a child, gets caught, and everyone, including the offender, agrees that it was a morally depraved act that should be punished severely. That's not a controversial sex offense case. It is only a small minority of sex offense cases that end up being extensively discussed in the mass media for raising controversial questions of what types of sexual behavior are harmful and/or morally wrong, and if so how severely harmful and/or morally wrong, and what, if any, punishment should be meted out. Leucosticte (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then write encyclopaedia articles about the subjects, not individual one-thing biographies of the people proffered as anecdotal evidence, in the hope that the encyclopaedia article about the subject will mystically arise on its own if only enough one-thing biographies are written. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Classic coatrack as stands, delete with prejudice. --Jenny Longlegs (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeh, we don't do that. You can grit your teeth and say "Boo-rah!" while looking at the AfD result or something, if you want. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, what is with the use of the asterisks for identation all of a sudden? I thought that messed with the closer's ability to count votes. I made some bold type plain for the same reason. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You went to school at University of Wisconsin-Madison, didn't you, Archangel??? Carrite (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not en Wikipedia policy compliant. - The name is still nonsense for an encylopedia subject and the living people are not notable for a wikipedia article of their own, so their one minor crime doesn't belong here either -  the cases are not in any way special examples of anything.  You  really  can  08:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Using Wikipedia to draw attention to two people who are not specifically noteworthy otherwise is against the spirit of WP:BLP. I could imagine a legal article on Wikipedia which did not focus on the named individuals, but on the legal arguments about the broadness of the "sex offender" definitions - but such an article would not need to name people.  There are, in fact, a lot of legal discussions which sould be the basis of a legitimate article.  Collect (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to imagine an article about "Controversial cases" which did not give examples of cases. This is not a Biography of Living Persons article, but an article on the larger legal issues, in particular as they are perceived by the community. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Collect. --John (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete also per Collect. Naming them is unnecessary. Quinn &#10041;SUNSHINE 03:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a BLP1E case.  If someone was hit by a bus, and the incident was later used in ads by a taxi company telling you to stay away from buses, the taxi ads wouldn't count as a second event.  If there was also a serial killer who used the incident as an excuse to kill bus drivers, that wouldn't be a third event, even if they spoke out on television about how bad the serial killer is.  With respect to the person, their involvement in the extra events is an extension of their involvement in the first.  It's still one event for the purposes of BLP1E.  Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect the effort to build an elaborate model with which to elucidate an argument, but it is flawed in at least two respects. One, there are "Controversial cases", plural, so it is not a single event, but a continuing issue. Two, it is not a BLP. Even assuming the continuing coverage of this issue could be tortuously squeezed into the definition of a single event, WP:1E still says, "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is basically two BLP1E-violating articles, each about a single person, placed under one heading. Just placing the articles under one heading doesn't change this from two articles about people into one about an event.  There's no standalone event "combined controversy over case A and case B" that this article might be about.  It would be like writing an article "criticism of Democratic presidents" which had one paragraph about Barack Obama and one paragraph about Bill Clinton. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sex offender registration - these individuals aren't notable, this list isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:LISTN, and no list of this type (regardless of name) can be created that won't generate controversy. The section that I recommend merging to could use some expansion that help demonstrate issues with automatic mandatory registry. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If any of the details about these two living people is merged anywhere- please let me know as I would have objections to that - thanks - You  really  can  17:40, 29 June 2012 (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.