Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Bailey

Allison Bailey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Allison Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. The entire article is basically about WP:ONEEVENT which itself doesn't have an article as it's questionable if the event itself is itself would pass WP:EVENTCRIT (enduring significance seems questionable). The person doesn't appear otherwise notable on its own. Suggest deletion as the only other part in this article are actually just about LGB Alliance, not the person, so they are mere sidenotes that don't justify the BLP article. Raladic (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sexuality and gender. Raladic (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to LGB Alliance - the WP:BLP1E argument is, and will remain, persuasive unless it can be demonstrated that Bailey has some other noteworthy accomplishment. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Rename to "Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and others" and rework it into an article about that case, which is independently notable, and which the court of appeal will hear it again next year I believe.Void if removed (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep

WP:BLP1E says :We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

1. There is biographical information in this article which is properly sourced.

2. Bailey has been mentioned in the media other than in connection with the discrimination case.

3. The event is significant, and her role in it was significant. If she wins her current appeal, this will be even more significant.

Alternatively, rename per Void if removed. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)