Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Regan Miller

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 was delete. Singularity 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judge Regan Miller

Judge Regan Miller (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Creator feels I was overly hasty in deleting this. Locally notable judge who has unconventional views. I do not see significant media coverage, so here we are. Dlohcierekim 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I find only locl news coverage when searching google news. Dlohcierekim 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As Creator I am bound to argue for relevance. The facts are verifiable through the NPR citations included. I would ask that the decision be based on the inherent notability of a Judge participating in the re-emergence of the Bastardy-laws by in effect asserting that bastard children are the principle cause of every imaginable social ill.Benjamin Gatti (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CommentI see a link to a local station broadcast. I do not find any mention of him when I search for subject + NPR. Dlohcierekim 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

C[[1]] is a link to the WFAE web page. WFAE is the local NPR Affiliate for Charlotte.NC.US. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, though, that NPR affiliates will often broadcast local news along with networked shows such as, say, A Prairie Home Companion. That unfortunately does not make the news notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I was the original nominator and I do not feel that this passes WP:N. A [2] quick Google search yields nothing notable. meshach (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - on notability grounds. A comparatively minor jurist who makes a silly statement on local radio. The radio interview is a primary source. There are no apparent secondary sources (eg followup media reporting). The judge's comments have made no particular impact on laws surrounding illegitimacy or any other legal issue. Lastly, as the guideline states, notability is not temporary. Will anyone recall these comments(or Judge Miller) in ten years? Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, sources exist, but I'm not convinced that this judge is notable outside of his own community. The article also has serious POV problems. Lankiveil (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete for both source problems and POV - the comments on the judge's opinions would also need sourcing to demonstrate their falseness Jeodesic (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophesies do not need to be false to be hate-speech. Disparaging individuals for circumstances beyond their control is always hate-speech, even when completely correct. Society often gets the results it predicts (need examples or is your history up to snuff)? Benjamin Gatti (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether his statements are correct, if you claim they are false you should provide evidence. I wasn't trying to claim that his opinions were anything other than prejudiced, though I can see how confusion might have arisen. Jeodesic (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - created as attack page. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject. Remove that and you have, essentially, nothing. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we should nominate NAZI next? on the same grounds? Benjamin Gatti (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be about notable subjects. Notability is determined having regard for the notability guidelines. The actions of the Nazi Party made an enduring (negative) contribution to the historical record and continue to be discussed in countless reliable sources. Regan Miller's silly comments on a local radio station make no enduring contribution to anything (be it legal thinking, state or national laws, whatever) and have not been followed up by coverage in reliable secondary sources. I will leave aside the offensiveness of equating the perpetrators of the Holocaust with some nobody giving a local radio interview, and simply note the existence and accuracy of Godwin's law. Euryalus (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Eeeeeewwwwwww! Dlohcierekim 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as per discussion here. One showing on an NPR radio show at a station does not make notability, especially if the show is a local show and not broadcast over the NPR feed itself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above - I have also taken the liberty of deleting the controversial POV content for the moment. LeContexte (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2007 (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.