Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Robin Sharpe

John Robin Sharpe was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Question - is being a criminal, or victim of a crime, notable per se? Seeing articles like this makes me think Wikipedia is becoming a news archive. Now, if the case had say some significance in legal process (the article hints at this but doesn't expand), or affecting attitudes towards child porn etc., it would probably be inclusion-worthy. In that case though, the article shouldn't be about the person, but about the case. What is the consensus on this? Ianb 07:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Depending on the crime, being a criminal is probably notable. In this case, there were some interesting and potentially far-reaching legal consequences, though the article doesn't go into them.  Hopefully someone can expand the article.  Keep. Exploding Boy 07:55, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe that R v Sharpe case is one of the most pivetal cases of our times. Indeed it does bring into question social and legal issues about child pornography, ephebophilia and more.  The person surrounding this case -- Sharpe -- is equally of note, as he is a personality who certainly holds strong views and has a very interesting personal life that extends beyond what society sees as a crime.  Sharpe is more than just a criminal.  No, this page should not be deleted!   209.217.75.162 10:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * the question still remains: is it the person or the case that is relevant? Ianb 08:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It is the person. 209.217.75.162 10:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a combination. I don't really have the knowledge of the subject to go into it here, but he's a writer, and part of his case revolved around fiction he had written, and shared, with other paedophiles.  Literary experts were called in to comment on it, and compared it to... damn, I can't remember, some famous author.  Yeah, I'm going to quit while I'm ahead, but there's more to this that can definitely be added to the article.  And would people please sign their posts using four tildes (~).  Oh, by the way, votes from anonymous users are not valid on VfD.  Exploding Boy 08:40, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay. 209.217.75.162 10:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * ...by which I was suggesting that, if you want to participate, you should sign up for a user name. IP addresses are considered to be anonymous.  Exploding Boy 10:13, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not a big fan of sneaky celebrations of pedophiliacs, but this is straightforward, NPOV, clean, and explains, I think, notability and uniqueness. Geogre 13:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the most pivotal case regarding child pornography in Canadian history. It set precedence in British Columbia, and then eventually throughout Canada, that works involving "imaginary" children or works with "artistic" merit were not considered criminal offenses and has led to massive debate and wrangling among the leading federal political parties in trying to draw the line between freedom of expression and protection of children. It even came up in the last federal election in June with Stephen Harper repeatedly (and proudly) claiming he would use the notwithstanding clause to override the ruling. I agree the article is brief (it is a stub and marked as such) but anybody who says this is not significant in an encyclopedic way is nuts. Keep, keep, keep. (I would prefer keeping this information under this name because the alternative is to break it into his individual court cases, and that seems unnecessary.) -- Matty j 15:21, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is dealt with under What Wikipedia is Not. Mr. Sharpe is only notable for being charged with what have you, so information about him belongs under Famous Child Porn Cases or whatever, not his own article.  Bacchiad 18:15, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, he's famous for successfully challenging portions of Canada's child pornography laws. If he were just charged with child pornography and convicted, I would agree with you - there's thousands of those cases, we don't need an article for each one. As it is, however, he's been one the top Canadian newsmakers since 1995, not because of the crime itself, but because it's changed Canada's legal and moral landscape in profound and controversial ways. -- Matty j 18:50, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: the original article didn't convince me it was more than just another "bio-dump" which might end up for ever a stub on a non-notable. Should be kept and expanded on. I still think the main emphasis should be on the case rather than the person though - not that I have a good idea for a title. Ianb 18:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've tried to rewrite the article with more emphasis placed on the legal and historic significance of his actions. -- Matty j 18:50, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * addendum: I've just seen the current version of the article; I humbly withdraw this vfd. Thanks for the feedback everyone! Ianb 18:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, with reservations. Sounds like an important case to me and it should definitely be somewhere.  It's sort of like Rosa Parks, though -- does it deserve an article of its own (who the hell outside of Canada would look up an article called "John Robin Sharpe"?) or should it be incorporated in something called "Canadian Civil Rights", "Canadian Treat of Sex Crimes", or something similar?  Rosa Parks has an article, but she's also a vital part of the Civil Rights movement.  About Sharpe I dunno....Hayford Peirce 20:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The case got worldwide attention... Exploding Boy 01:33, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sharpe considers himself a part of Canada's civil rights movement, although the rest of us just consider him a sick, disturbed old man. But even given that, I think the national debate he's prompted is an important one for the country to have. It will be the case that is looked at twenty years from now when people study and come to an understanding about how Canada's child pornography laws have come to be formed, whatever that final outcome may be. And I don't think the local nature of the person's historical impact is any criticism. Who outside of of Mali cares who even the Prime Minister of Mali is? Yet I think that article, as this one, and even the most obscure local one, are worthy of entry. -- Matty j 03:05, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep current article. Rossami 22:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not all criminals (or criminal cases) are notable, but this one appears to be.  I don't think there should be a separate article about the case, however, so if one is created, it should be merged and redirected to this one, or vice versa.  I'm a little confused as to why the "artistic merit" quote is repeated twice in the article&mdash;is it an editing mistake, or did the judge say it both times the case reached the Canadian Supreme Court?  Postdlf 01:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my fault. A couple of the sources confuse quotation attribution between the 2001 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and the 2002 Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling. And then I carelessly didn't realize that was the case. It's fixed now. -- Matty j 03:05, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * First off, as a Canadian citizen I am offended by the statement "who the hell outside of Canada would look up an article called John Robin Sharpe" as if to imply that people outside of Canada need to be interested in something for it to worthwhile. There are 30 million people in Canada.  It is a highly educated, internet connected culture.  I would suspect that a large number of accesses to this site come from Canada.  If I said "who outside of the United States would look up an article on George Washington" I would be immediately shot down.  Even if only Canadian read this article, it is still worthwhile to have it in the Wikipedia.  Thanks for letting me talk.  64.26.170.157 19:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What I obviously meant, if you had bothered to think about it, was that "who the hell outside of Canada would know the name John Robin Sharpe in order to look it up?" No more than I would expect a Mexican (or Canadian) to know the name "Rosa Parks" -- if they wanted to learn about the U.S. civil rights movement, they would look that up, not Rosa Parks.  Ditto with John Robin Sharpe, which, you will note, I voted to keep.  Hayford Peirce 20:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Definately keep. This fellow is part of one of the most notable criminal and civil rights cases of a decade. Canada, the USA, and Britain all share a similar common law justice system so the case will very likely be cited in jursidictions outside of Canada. Arevich 21:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because no one outside of USA would look up Rosa Parks doesn't mean she doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Thanks for your yes vote Hayford Peirce.  As for common law -- I think Canada has a system of juriprudence.  The case wouldn't be relevant to the UK or any other commonwealth country.  It would however be important to any country that has a charter of rights, like the USA.  It is really about the reality of civil rights budding up against "common sense" ideas about sexual conduct.  64.26.170.157 07:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)