Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imprisonment of Roger Shuler

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imprisonment of Roger Shuler

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

This article should be deleted based on its subject's "newsy" nature and non-notability as an event. While Shuler's arrest and imprisonment did generate some news coverage, it is unlikely to have lasting historical significance. Further, the fact that most reliable sources covering the event date from a burst of coverage in early 2014 suggests that continuing coverage is unlikely. Few non-Alabama RS covered Shuler's subsequent release from jail or his subsequent arrest warrant. Finally, this situation is analogous to coverage of a criminal act; although there are other issues implicated in Shuler's arrest and imprisonment, at its base this is a criminal act and has generally been treated in non-opinion sources as such. Dyrnych (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep. I wrote the article but it's a borderline case ~~and I'll leave its disposition to my esteemed colleagues~~. I'll copy over what a wrote on the article talk page:

Erm, maybe. You might be right. A WP:AfD discussion would certainly be quite justified. Article'd probably be kept is my guess, on the basis of a New York Times article and totality of the other refs, plus his status as the only person in the Western Hemisphere on the (what I think is still the most current) Committee to Protect Journalists list. You never know, though. You also have a WP:BLP argument in that, although I tried to be evenhanded, there's really no way to avoid Shuler coming off kind of badly in some respects, notwithstanding being a martyr of sorts, and you could make the case that at the end of the day he's just an idiosyncratic private citizen and doesn't deserve to be exposed to public scrutiny in the world's most popular encyclopedia. There's also the issue of "Rileys's son" and the "the woman"; although I didn't name them, I suppose it'd certainly be possible to find their names somewhere (certainly for the former), and an article here greatly increases the visibility of the (certainly salacious and, according to a judge, defamatory) claim about two completely private citizens, and it'd be hard to have the article make sense if you redact that material. So, reasonable WP:BLP case on those grounds also.

On the other hand, it's not just a oddball-criminal human interest story. There's First Amendment aspects which the New York Times noted and the argument could be made that that makes it of encyclopedic value if you're looking into application of law in that area in 21st century America.

UPDATE: The case was unsealed, so the original complaint is public record and so it is indeed fairly easy to get the name of the the plaintiffs for anyone who cares to. Also, he was released in March, to little mainstream press notice that I could find right off. An arrest warrant has recently been issued for him and from there the trail goes cold. Any road, the case is probably over and the relative lack of mainstream notice of the end of the case would be another possible point. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Keep simply because there doesn't seem likely to be any discussion, and I actually do prefer that the article be kept, so with one Delete vote (the nomination) and one Keep vote and reasonable arguments for keeping, the discussion can be closed as No Consensus To Delete I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real objection to this. While I think that the article probably should be deleted and stand by my arguments for deletion, I'm not terribly invested that outcome. Absent any further discussion, No Consensus seems to be correct. Dyrnych (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is sufficiently a public issue of some significance, and the present article seems fair. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.