Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Gordon Lawrence


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Roy Gordon Lawrence
Tagged as db-attack, which it seems to do, but not without reason. Notability? Open to question. A difficult one. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy A6. Seems to disparage its subject as db-attack says. This article screams, "This guy is a freaking pervert who leads an awful life." Royal Blue 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy A6. Same as above. Launch board for personal attacks and so forth. An apparently "sicko" article belongs in the local paper, not an encyclopedia. -- Jay  (Reply)  00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Father Paul Shanley has a whole article on him, if Protestant pastor pedo articles are swept under the rug this will indicate bias on WP Ruby 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it will not. If an article about a "Protestant pastor pedo" who received the same amount of press attention is swept under the rug, then it will indicate the same thing.  Like it or not, notability is a criterion taken into account for articles, and like it or not, individual cases of pedophilia, no matter how reprehensible, aren't reaching the levels of infamy achieved by the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal.  I Google "Paul Shanley" and get 116,000 hits.  I Google "Roy Gordon Lawrence" and get ... ten.  The first of which is Wikipedia's own article.  Plus...  when you say Paul Shanley has "a whole article" on him, you're referring to two paragraphs and one external link.  How many paragraphs are we devoting to Roy Gordon Lawrence?  How many of them are merited? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At first glance, the lengths of the articles seems to be correlated to the number of offenses committed. Ruby 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a point there, but the difference between Shanley and Lawrence is that Shanley was a little more notable, and was a "prominent figure" in a greater Boston scandal (and we just love scandals), whereas Lawrence, although according to allegations is as equally troubled, is a little less notable. It is the first I'm hearing of him anyways, and I'm close enough to Ottawa. -- Jay  (Reply)  00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep delete and strong Cleanup. Needs some NPOVing as noted above, including axing a several-hundred-word paragraph.  Appears substantially documented, but I haven't dug into whether effects and reporting were widespread, whether the case had important influence on broader investigations, and so forth.  "Category:Protestant pastor pedophiles" is neither a reason to keep nor a reason to delete, and we should try to keep our own POV's out of the question.  WP:V?  WP:Importance?  (During edit conflict, changed leaning-vote per Master Jay.)  Barno 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (I apologize if editing in wrong place) - my official notes were put in the Talk page for that article. JzG is correct in that this is a difficult one.  There are some factual things here.  Roy Gordon Lawrence was charged, and served prison time.  Those articles did appear in the paper.  Most of the history (as in things 10+ years ago), though questionable POV, are true... the biggest criteria of db-attack are the comments regarding recent history (that Roy Gordon Lawrence is going to reoffend, won't admit to certain things, unrepentant, that he formed his own church, etc.)  These things are 100% POV.  The author can make statements to back up his POV, but there are other POVs (contraty to the authors POV) which can be backed up.  Bottom line... this has "future battleground" written all over it.  I just don't see its value or place on Wikipedia.  Even just looking at the history of Roy Gordon Lawrence --Does Wikipedia want to become a criminal records database?  This screams of an attack page, under the guise of public informance.   This isn't about pedophilia (and indeed such is horrible!), this is about creating a soapbox and trying to taint the image of people associated with Roy Gordon Lawrence today (10+ years after the crimes) .. which in this case includes a local church that Roy Gordon Lawrence attends.  Surely Wikipedia is not the place for this? Andyru
 * Keep as notable.Blnguyen 04:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep based on his 1991 arrest as a police officer, which legitimately received signficant public interest and concern, with national media coverage. That alone made him a public figure and a notable person (not famous, not notorious, but notable).  The 2004 Church stuff adds to his notability, and renews his status as a public figure. --Rob 05:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup unsourced assertions.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup as the article is very POV and some of the grammar and syntax fall below the standards set for WP articles.  (aeropagitica)   06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nce Ong 08:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable. S iva1979 Talk to me  11:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Request: Perhaps an admin could delete the history of the article, to remove the prior attack text, and what looked like copyvio from newspaper stories. --Rob 12:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom Bobby1011 14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. Englishrose 14:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but definitely removed unsourced assertions. (!) Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this personal attack. I know this guy and how hard it is for him to move on with his life. RandM, 15Feb06


 * Delete per nom... ultimately just not notable enough.--Isotope23 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Mccready 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this really nasty personal attack. This man is one of thousands who will find it impossible to get on with a rebuilt (normal) life because of vindictive articles like this. AndyB, 15Feb06 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.172.9 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Delete this is malicious personal attack. Mr. Lawrence has not only paid his debt but met, and continues to meet, all the court appointed requirements. The change in his life should be an example to others who have been forgiven, who should forgive also, and let him live his new life.  Feb 15/06.
 * Comment: If Saddam Hussein claims to have sworn off massacres and poison gas attacks, does that mean that Wikipedia (or at least Christian WP editors) "should forgive" him and therefore should delete articles about his verified past activities? I'm not saying this person's history is equivalent to Saddam's; I'm just saying we should use WP's standards of verifiability and importance, rather than deleting the article because its side effects may include the unhappy consequences of this person's own actions.  Barno 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Point well made Barno! I would reluctantly admit that there is valid argument where the article could be kept to the "historical" elements of Roy Gordon Lawrence's past in a NPOV format.  (Though, I do believe even that would result in a bit of a battleground with the Author.)   The main reason this was tagged as db-attack is that this author is well known for the spreading of "dirt" on Roy Gordon Lawrence in many forums (distribution lists, letters, now Wikipedia, etc.).   It is done under the guise of public informance (akin to a "sex offender registry" ... "who's in your neighborhood" ... "he current lives here" ... "he goes to church there" scenario).


 * Comment: Per WP:OWN, nobody except the Wikipedia owns an article once it's submitted.  If you've correctly characterized the article's author, he'll have to accept the community's NPOVing cuts, or persuade editors that his alternative edits would meet all WP policies.  ... However, if by capitalized "Author" you meant YHWH, the Father in the Christian Trinity, then I'm not prepared for "a bit of a battleground with the Author" unless He can post to the WP talk pages.  Barno 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all. Ardenn 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The author is using this article as a soapbox to mount a savage attack on a man that he victimized. Granted, Mr. Lawrence has an unsavory past. However, the author is intent on using any medium as a soapbox to attack Mr. Lawrence with allegations about more recent behavior that are untrue and designed to destroy him. Even if the article is cleaned up, will the History page still show the original article that is clearly libelous? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosiam (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Comment: I have moved the disruptive talk at the top of the page.  If anybody wishes to partipate here, add your comments to the *bottom* of this page, and sign your comments.  Don't rant at the top, please. --Rob 07:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the news coverage ensured inclusion to Wikipedia. Arbustoo 08:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Please do no remove large portions of this article while the discussion takes place. It is not fair and makes no sense to ask people to decide for or against deletion when they cannot read the article. (posted by User:Williamo1)
 * All uncited defamatory claims and bias will be removed during and after the vote. Let's be clear:  the version you originally made will not be allowed on Wikipedia *regardless* of this vote.  This vote is deciding whether there will be a fair and balanced article on Lawrence, or no article whatsoever (nothing else).  The version filled with unverified defamatory information is not under consideration, and will never return (for long) to Wikipedia. --Rob 20:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete...non-notable person, POV attack page. KHM03 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would ask you, or anybody, who sees any POV attacks in the article to promptly remove it from the article. You're free to vote delete if you wish, but any attacks you see can be removed with or without deletion of the article as a whole. --Rob 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete: This entry strives to connect Lawrence's pedophile past of 15 years ago to the present. It is clearly a personal attack by one person and Wikipedia has a more noble calling than to allow itself to be used this way. February 19, 2006
 * Keep: as a person of interest he is one of Canada's more notable pedophiles - given he was a cop and then became a pastor (by covering his past) after his conviction, when all current pedophiles with more than one child victim are permanently under certain restrictions which wisely include not allowing them to ever serve in posiitons of authority - knowing his past - why would he train for and seek this carreer for himself? Pure motives? Then why start having children sleeping over in 2004 - and this is verified by numerous articles in the press - never challenged - and the press confirmed by quotes from Elders and Clerk of the new church where he teaches - that he did have kids sleeping over and these Elders told the reporter he was cured! KEEP and that he submitted to a court order and treatment in 2004-2005. Delete so he can get on with his life (doing just what) but what about the children getting on with theirs -and the court transctipts do indicate the judge UPPED his sentence (rare enough in Canada)  from 5 to 8 years when it was revealed that he had admitted to molesting at least 15 more and refused to co-operate with the police in solving those cases - what about the children  those - 15 (and God alone knows how many more) getting on with their lives...a wikipedia page is a small price to pay - AGAIN - almost all the deletes come from people currently listening to him teahc a three month series on "temptaiton". Go figure..? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Williamo1 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Delete, not notable, not distinct, not interesting, no redeeming value. Ineloquent 23:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, actually this kind of thing is highly notable, and highly distinct. There was substantial national coverage of this (at least for the original crime).  You may have no interest in it, but obviously media across the country have, and the public did (as an issue of public trust).  Let us not pretend a police officer, who's convicted of these extraordinary offenses, is typical. --Rob 23:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep there is interest on this list for the article. That bumps it from borderline to keep. FloNight 14:49, 20 February 2006 (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.