Deletion of Janet Allison

Comment: BLP1E is certainly applicable here, can't argue with the nominator on that. Could even be considered  eligible, but i'm not sure, since the material is "sourced", and the criteria for that specifies that it be unsourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G10)

Comment: As article creator, my keep comes at no surprise. First, let's recap the facts.  Janet Allison, a mother of five, allows that her 15-year old daughter is sexually active - not an uncommon occurrence in many countries. In Georgia, USA, she is convicted as a sex-offender which brings her swift social deroute: her children is put in foster care, she is forced to move into a mobile home, she is not allowed to see her daughter and grandson, and she stays in public register branded as a sex-offender for life.  Second, what happens?  The Economist has incredible international penetration, a very high reputation for facts checking - in short an extremely reliable source.  Every week they publish 5 or 6 leaders.  As their ''second leader'' they discuss USA sex-offender laws and they chose to present Janet Allison's case as a horror example - an example for other countries not to commit the same mistake as USA.  I emphasize, this is not mention of the person Janet Allison, but the legal case Janet Allison.  The article follows this line.  It is not about her early childhood, education, employment, achievements, etc - but the unintended consequences of well-meant legislation to protect the innocent.  ''The Wikipedia article is about the event, not the person''.  BLP1E does simply not apply.  The case Janet Allison is also mentioned extensively in a USA Today article.  The case Janet Allison is mentioned in Human Rights Organizations.  We know little about her, it's the case that is interesting.  This mention in highly reputable RS makes the article a clear pass for .  Should it be merged into sex offender registration? No, for two reasons.  First, many more RS can be found for this case, the legal reasoning and steps and the social deroute could be detailed, there could be links to the legal acts, and what other op-eds in RS say about the story, pro and con.  There is context for an article.  Second, because this is only one example of unintended consequences of that law.  Teenagers that text half-naked photos of themselves to friends risk being prosecuted for "distributing child pornography", (Economist), teens that have consensual sex also risk being prosecuted as "sex-offenders" (ibid).  Those cases could also warrant articles in themselves, of course depending on the sheer amount of RS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Straight fail , nothing else to it. —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)