Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedric 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. Tone 11:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Miller

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

Highly negative pseudobiography article on a non-notable person. I think this article is bordering on being an attack page, and did nominate it as one at first, although I accept it was not created to disaparage its subject. Nonetheless, it only exists to contain pejorative material about a living person who does not meet our notability guidelines: the subject is only 'notable' for giving a sermon about Facebook, which is not sufficient for notability. From WP:Avoiding harm: "Is the person notable for any other events in their life? In most cases, as noted above, a person who is only notable for one event does not merit a full biography under their name." On that basis, this article should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nomination is not persuasive insofar as it relies on an essay (WP:PSEUDO) and mistakenly claims that he is notable only for one event. Since the article talks about two different issues separated by seven years, we'd have to be talking about an extraordinarily long event. In any case, having created the article I think he meets WP:N, unsurprisingly -- and I think clicking on the news link in "findsources" above will make this clear (though the search can be refined by adding "Neptune", the town where he lives, to get to the results that apply only to him). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, for some reason the link above leaves out most of the hundreds of news links he now gets: see here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The juxtaposition of facts is such that it had the effect of being an attack page - neither of the two events are notable and "he said X, and then later did X himself" serves solely as an attack. ninety:one 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pseudo attack page as stated by ninety, plus there's only one singular point of notability. A court statement, however salubrious, doesn't count as a second point or hence create a chain to pass WP:NOTAB. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The argument that the two events took place seven years apart fails when we learn that the group sex allegation only achieved public notoriety after his Facebook sermon, when reporters hungry for a salacious tidbit dug it up. The result if not the intent of the article is to humiliate a person whose "notability", such as it is, comes from only from sermons criticizing what he sees as negative aspects of internet society. Cullen328 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely. What's good for the goose is good for the goslings. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it mentions two events, this really falls under WP:BLP1E. St Anselm (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one real event, and a pretty trivial one at that. LadyofShalott 02:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I agree that this is basically a one-event bio. __meco (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2010 (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.