Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Gordon Lawrence (second 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 of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Gordon Lawrence

Has a previous no consensus AFD. No idea why it was AFD'd, ask User:Andyru. Just listing it properly. kotepho 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) This article was nominated for deletion before when I was extremely new to Wikipedia. The argument was not presented well. Please take a look at the following discussions: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Oosterman ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Williamo1 ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citywide_Church ]

Delete: user Williamo1 (and his socks) are using this article as a personal soapbox. Look at the edit history. Any person just diving into this issue is going to be immediately horrified at the past of Roy Gordon Lawrence. However, nobody on Wikipedia ever cared about him before Williamo1 first created the page. It was created in a manner to portray public informance (seems justified)... however, quickly has turned into a personal vendetta and soapbox for him. Williamo1 seems to be using this as a sex offender registry, tracking the whereabouts of this person. He pays no heed to the fact this man has changed his lifestyle form his past and pokes fun as his current life as well as tried to descredit the church he attends by suggesting all sorts of crazy things (saying he won't cooperate with police etc.) This article either needs to be deleted to remove the soapbox (which only Williamo1 cares about), or at least its history should be deleted (kept as current) and Williamo1 and his IP should be banned from further edits (I don't wish to edit it either). Note that nobody in Wikipedia cared about this subject matter except Williamo1 (and myself) -- though a few people have stepped in to help control the POV editing by Williamo1 and another stepped in to help format the article better. Andyru 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I recognize that relisted this as AFD may (at first glance) seem like the wrong approach -- at it may be. I tried RFC once, and had no response (though I wonder if I did it correctly). Please have a look at the links I listed above... it does take a little time to understand the soapbox allegation -- with a little looking you'll see exactly what I mean. Advice appreciated -- I hope I've stated things clearly enough, as a first glance at this issue won't provide you with enough info to see where I'm coming from Andyru 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is why. kotepho 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arundhati bakshi 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons I gave in the last AFD. This article was created originally as an attack, and the creator has constantly tried to defame people other than Lawrence through "guilt by association". I will be quite happy if it's deleted, but as explained in the past, it has been fixed (by another editor, and by me), and it does qualify for inclusion. Before judging the article, please review the article's history, as it can flip back and forth quite frequently. --Rob 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything suggesting encyclopedia-level notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO... since the last AfD this guy still isn't notable.--Isotope23 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete We don't need an article on every criminal/alleged criminal and I'm not sure what makes this guy special. kotepho 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Clear Keep. The question is verifiability and notability. Both are clearly established by the numerous stories in Canadian newspapers and newsmagazines. If there is some perceived difficulty with fairness, the article should be edited to undo what is the problem. But just because this guy's past is unpleasant doesn't make it any less a part of the record. Bucketsofg 20:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Google search doesn't find much "numerous". Besides, one newspaper article does not a notabler person make. Fagstein 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, didn't you notice the original event occurred years before Google was founded? Did you know that they published newspapers and magazines on paper at one time (I hear they still do)? There's this thing called a library. You can find all sorts of stuff at it, some of which isn't on the free web. --Rob 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per kotepho. Sandstein 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--RandM 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is user's fourth edit, all to this AFD and previous. --Rob 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: is a proven sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kosiam 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is user's third edit, all to this AFD and previous one. --Rob 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: is a proven sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OMG, Man charged with crime! He can come back when he assassinates a king. Fagstein 06:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Next time, read the article, and read the referenced articles, before making such an ill-informed comment. Some people here are writing an encyclopedia. If you wish to clown around, there are many places you can do that. I respect those who disagree with me on this article. I don't respect people who disrespect this project. --Rob 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote :: looking at the "History", and the article style, this appears to be in the style of an attack page. What makes this individual notable in an encyclopaedic sense ? If he is notable, why does the article have to deal in perjoratives and POV, rather than simple facts ? On the other hand, is there any public-good reason for not starting an article List of known paedophiles and their current addresses ? -- With respect, Simon Cursitor 07:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Comments withdrawn, in a spirit of further respect -- Simon Cursitor 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What specifically are you talking about? Given the volitile nature of this article, you'll have to specify (with a link), which version you're referring to, regarding "perjoratives and POV". I beleive the current version deals strictly with facts, at the expense of being very concise, and not fully elaborating on the broader controversies (old and new) and public policy debates triggered by the person (old and new). Generally, we don't delete articles because old versions had problems. Also, I can't tell from your comments if you're seriously suggesting List of known paedophiles and their current addresses or if that was sarcasm (in any event, I wouldn't want such a list here). Sorry in advance, as I'm sure I misunderstood/misinterpretted some of your comments. --Rob 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but also because the subject is simply not notable enough, per Simon Cursitor and Fagstein. If we are to debate honestly the merits of retaining this article, it has to be on the basis of notability. This man's notability ultimately derives from acts he committed 15 years ago. I don't see national or international press coverage of these events; I don't see wide or constantly maintained press interest in this individual and, although I note Rob's point about paper -v- Web, I don't see widespread Internet coverage. The fact that the subject held a responsible position when he committed crimes may interest or titillate us, but I do not believe that it confers notability. Humansdorpie 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you don't feel there was *sufficient* national coverage. But surely you acknowledge there was national coverage. You're statement "I don't see national or international press coverage of these events" seems to ignore coverage in a national magazine, as well as newspapers from Alberta, BC, and Ontario. That is national coverage. Again, I'm fine if you don't think that's sufficient. But you're making a literal mistatement. It's also offensive to suggest this is done to "titillate us". Read the article. There's no "titillation". And yes, I concede your point that in 1991 there was not "widespread Internet coverage" (I don't see how you note my point, then seem to miss it). Can I ask you if you actually read the cited offline news stories (which is necessary to have a basis for the opinions you expressed)? Again, I got no problem with people deciding this is not notable, in their opinion, but I object to what I see are factual errors expressed.. --Rob 15:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right - I should have been more specific and stated that I didn't see any significant national coverage. My point about the Internet is that it is reasonable to expect a greater Internet presence for anyone notable enough for an online encyclopaedia - no matter when the events happened. I don't believe I suggested the article was designed to titillate people, and I'm afraid I disagree that it is necessary to read the offline news stories to express an opinion on the notability of this individual. Humansdorpie 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm quite fine with you deleting this article. But, I seriously hope you would agree that there are many other articles, that are supported largely by offline sources, which very much warrant inclusion, and are of great value (note: I'm talking of other articles here, not this one). Some of the best references for articles are still on paper. The fact we're online in no way means we should hostile to offline sources. In fact, the offline sources are often more reliable than online ones. --Rob 17:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Rob has a very valid point in a general sense of offline vs online WP:V sourcing (ala Vampire Watermelon).--Isotope23 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom--Joe dimitri 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Appears to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Individual criminals rarely rise to the level of being encyclopedic. I agree that web-based arguments about notability have flaws; I have tried to rescue articles myself on this basis with mixed success. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs).)
• Keep per Rob, bucketsofg. Samaritan 15:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle 23:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP The Roman Catholic priests have articles - why not protestants? This man made headlines many time,,,as a police officer and pastor he is notorious. The Grace Baptist Church web page ,shows he is still active preaching and teaching,,,,that could possibly lead to more headlines,,Again this should be kept,,many people think so. Frankly it worries me that YOU want his past hidden i.e ...User Andyru ARE YOU WELL??? .Jugementonyou 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)),.
  • - Jugementonyou (nice hidden name), you are either a socketpuppet or meatpuppet of user Williamo1 (no, that is NOT an insult, look up the meanings of those terms on Wikipedia and you'll understand). You've already proved this by your attempts to redit the William Oosterman article (which were deleted by admins promptly). DO NOT remove votes from this page! You removed my nomination statement. You should read it. Notorious? Maybe you should look in mirror first. Don't pretend to know me and hide behind a secret identity. Andyru 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to concur. This is one of the lamest sock/meat puppet attempts I've seen. --Rob 08:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: is a confessed sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history and comments on project/talk page. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep please erasing this does not make any sense Yuckfoo 00:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Under the notable people in Wikipedia it define notoriety as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Based on the news coverage of this guy, I would definitly say he has notoriety. I say keep because what is there now is basic public knowledge of events that were considered quite newsworthy. So long as it stays neutral, let it stay. What he did was pretty horrendus. Now he has to live with that it is public knowledge. —This unsigned comment was added by SunbirdInc (talk • contribs) .
  • Note: This is the first edit of this user. --Rob 08:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: appears to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP I don't think by deleting this page would be helpfull to the community! Graceb 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first and only edit. Reminder: all these sock votes (on both sides) will be disregarded. --Rob 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: is a proven sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be good to factor out ALL the votes by people who just signed up to vote (for EITHER delete or keep). Fair is fair. I bet if you trace the sock/meatpuppet IPs, they are all from Ottawa. This page wasn't meant as a "pissing match" (pardon the expression), it was made to get comments from outside neutral parties. This only goes to further prove my point in the nom, that nobody cares about this outside the scope of two churches which split. Hence, my original vote to delete off of this encyclopedia. Andyru 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems both notable and verifiable. AfD is not the place to bring up problems like this. I would encourage all of those who were heavaly involved with this article in the past to voluntarily walk away from it and never look back. —A 20:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Have I understood you correctly ? You want the people *involved* with this to "walk away" ? Presumably, they are the ones likeliest to know the *facts* in this instance. Do I take it that, while they are doing so, and thereafter, you will yourself enter into an undertaking that neither personally nor through others will you in any way edit the page, so that "the rest of us" can be sure that the Wiki entry (if this clears AfD) remains unbiased and objective ? -- Simon Cursitor
    • It seems that you have. There is no embargo on facts. If those involved were able to locate and cite the sources in the article, others will be able to as well. If this is not the case, you need to ask yourself if you are in fact performing original research. —A 03:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Admin Request: if a strong enough consensus is not reached (to delete the article) by end of voting, would it be possible (as per the nom) to at least delete the history of this article and leave it under its current (neutral) state? If there is a IP/userid specific edit restriction for an article... it may also be useful here. As you can see, even the AFD page becomes a subject of nonencyclopedic nonsense. Yes, I'm a part of it, but I'm on the side of getting it OFF Wikipedia (which I think is good). So, I will voluntarily ask that I be one of the banned editors (if this article survives AFD) Andyru 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This subject is verifiable and well within the bounds of WP:BIO notability. Whoever said "delete per WP:BIO" please cite your guideline for deletion. Silensor 15:06, 4 April 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.