Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Bailey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)[reply]

  • Keep or 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
That's WP:CRYSTAL because she has not, as of now, won her appeal - if she wins her appeal then its still a single event - the appeal of her ongoing litigation against Stonewall being part of said ongoing litigation - and, as for her media mentions, are any of them not about her anti-trans activism with LGBA or the lawsuit? Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the extract from WP:BLP1E which I quoted above: for WP:BLP1E to apply, then all 3 conditions have to be met. Since the legal case is significant, and her role in it is also (obviously) significant, this case does not come under WP:BLP1E. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the legal case is highly questionable being honest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case is clearly significant. There have been several successful employment claims since the Forstater and Bailey rulings where Bailey has been cited (eg. Meade vs Westminster City Council), as it goes a little beyond Forstater in providing examples of what is to be considered protected speech. It also establishes and protects slightly wider beliefs than Forstater.
It also, most significantly IMO, wanders into the area of inducement to discriminate under s111 of the EA, which Bailey lost at the EAT, but will now be heard by the court of appeal on the grounds that:
The grounds have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.
So this will set significant precedent.
So it has been subject to significant coverage in popular mainstream media, is cited in other cases which have also received significant coverage, and although we cannot use a WP:CRYSTALBALL, when it reaches the court of appeal, whatever the outcome it will also establish precedent in an important area of equality law. Void if removed (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This will set significant precedent" is WP:CRYSTAL though. You cannot know that ahead of the fact. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't convinced when I first saw this but, after thinking about it, I think I do agree that something should be done. It doesn't feel like BLP1E, because the 1E has dragged on for far too long, but it probably is 1E nonetheless. Of the two options, I think making an article about the case might have a slight edge over merging it to the LGBA article. It isn't the LGBA's case, at least not directly, and handling it as a case encourages us to cover it like we would other cases, with a focus on the claims, laws and judgements rather than personalities, sideshows and fundraising. It might help to attract other editors who have experience covering legal matters. The case is quite complicated. I wasn't even aware that there was a further appeal. I thought that the last unsuccessful one was the end of it. Most people who have heard about it have heard very one-sided reporting. (I dare say that a fair few people must be confused as to why she was/is appealing a case that she had spent ages telling everybody that she had "won".) It would be good to detail it correctly so that readers can understand what the various parts of the case are, which bit she won and which bits she lost. I don't outright oppose the merge idea but renaming the article and bringing it up to standard as a legal article seems the better option. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal is mentioned on her website [1], but as far as I am aware, it has not yet been mentioned in the media. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think turning the article into a rendition of the case is the best compromise, it is the most significant ruling in this area alongside Forstater v CGDE, and although it's not been covered in the media, the grounds on which the court of appeal have agreed to hear it are significant. Void if removed (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far too much weight is being given to speculation about what might happen in the appeal case here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, speculation about a potential future violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, either the event is already right now significant and if the article was renamed to focus on the court case, the case needs to pass WP:EVENTCRIT, in particular Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes.... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
So aside from suggestion the article be moved to be about the case, the editors arguing for it, also need to actually provide evidence that it passes the eventcrit. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A legal case that has been covered by many of the UK's largest newspapers isn't a routine news event, and no crimes have been alleged here. Astaire (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I said it already is notable, with reasons (extensive ongoing media coverage and analysis, and citations in other cases). Once it is ruled on in the court of appeal it will be even more notable. Deleting the article of an already notable case that is certain to become more notable is unjustifiable. Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:crystaball. There is no certainty on future increases in notability, please stop pretending there is. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said it already is notable
This is the important part of what I said. I don't need a crystal ball. Its already notable and there's no grounds to delete it. Void if removed (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strange obsession of the UK press toward trans people does not confer notability to a routine court case. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing WP:CRYSTALBALL about a case which is going to the Court of Appeal. The result will be legally notable, whichever way it goes. A case which goes to the Court of Appeal is, by definition, not a ‘routine case’. And there is no ‘strange obsession of the UK press toward trans people’ - the case is not ‘about trans people’ it is about discrimination. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively rename to focus on the legal case, per Sweet6970. The case has been widely covered in UK press, with The Guardian calling it a microcosm of the wider debate about transgender rights [2]. Oppose merge or delete. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the article is primarily about the case. The case is not "significant" enough for BLP1E to not apply; there is some dispute regarding whether an article about the case would be deleted. There is no evidence of other coverage of her. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to LGB Alliance; she's only notable for activism as a part of that. The court case, which alleged that she was discriminated against for her position in that group, is downstream of that. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively rename to focus on the legal case. The case has been widely covered in UK press and Bailey is cited as a campaigner for lesbian women's rights in bringing her case. It was her as much as the case which made it notable, I think. Melissa Highton (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]