Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hosie 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 keep but rename to be discussed on article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hosie Miller

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

Delete per ~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. A separate biographical article is not needed for a person who was only notable for a single, isolated event. This article doesn't expand much upon the existing content at Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod. SnottyWong ^gab 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident was not isolated in that Miller was not merely a murder victim but one from a milieu that has been a subject of a great deal of interest and study with information about Miller being available from reliable sources. Miller's life is not Sherrod's and, in actual fact, very little of the information in the article is contained in the article Resignation of Shirley Sherrod other than the plain fact that Miller was murdered, with Miller's assailant remaining un-prosecuted.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the only notable thing you can describe about Hosie Miller was the way in which he died. Therefore, a biographical article on him would be a permastub. His death (and the ensuing aftermath) was indeed notable and therefore should be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia. However, a full-blown biographical article on Miller is not feasible. Is there an existing article on the relevant court case, or some other article in which this incident could be discussed? SnottyWong ^communicate 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A successful merger to somewhere would be an acceptable alternative to a deletion; unfortunatly, Hosie's life is so tangential to the subject of the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, finding an immediate merger target for his perma-stub might prove difficult. Btw, do "Merge, don't Delete" determinations default to Keep?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Merge means merge, not keep. Generally, you're not going to be able to make a Merge !vote without specifying the target for the merge. SnottyWong ^converse 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden. They deserve seperate articles. I think some of the types of murders, even though they are single events, get huge coverage across the decades, which clearly makes them notable. This is one. scope_creep (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fairly clear case of WP:BIO1E, plus the underlying event is not really notable either. Some murders are notable but this one is not. GoogleNews shows no coverage[1] until the Shirley Sherrod controversy. Even during the controversy the coverage is fairly minimal - just a few news-stories[2], within a brief period of time. Not enough to pass WP:N, plus WP:NOT#NEWS applies as well. May deserve a few sentences in Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod, but not more than that. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its unlikely that Google will have news on anything older than about 15 to 20 years. I think that's what makes it so unreliable for this type of article. I think back in the day it would have been very well known. scope_creep (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do have sources from "back in the day" covering the event in question, by all means do add them. But simply saying "I think back in the day it would have been very well known" is pure speculation. Nsk92 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Shirley Sherrod. Checking the references provided, the story of what happened to Hosie Miller is built upon only what has been said by Shirley Sherrod or her family members. There are reports of what Sherrod has said of the event but there are no independent reports of the event itself. With this in mind, the categorization of the article is extremely problematic. For example: Category:Lynching deaths in Georgia (U.S. state) really should be Category:Lynching deaths in Georgia (U.S. state) according to Shirley Sherrod since there are no independent or unbiased sources to report on the circumstances of how he died. Location (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm revising my comment, but not my recommendation, based upon the source added by Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden noted below. I do think the incident should be mentioned in Sherrod's biography since she claims it was instrumental in forming her direction in life, however, I'm not convinced there is enough independent discussion about her father that a stand alone article should be created. I have also re-written the article so that the facts better reflect what the sources have actually reported. I'm certain some may feel this incident was a racially motivated murder, or even a lynching, but it's not really clear from unbiased sources what truly happened - particularly since Miller's wife (and thus Sherrod!) was related to Hall and Hall claimed self-defense. Location (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW I'm adding more info from the Albany Herald--viz, about Cal A. Hall, Jr., who killed Miller, etc.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The person in question is dead and so the reference to BLP is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fairly clearly the nominator meant WP:BIO1E, which was cited above by others. The fact that the nominator misquoted the relevant wikilink does not make the entire discussion moot. Nsk92 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E provides no argument for deletion as it states "in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident". It is being alive which provides something of a reason to delete in controversial cases so that the name does not show up so readily in searches. Therefore when the person is dead, there is not the slightest reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously going to argue that WP:BIO1E cannot be used as a valid rationale for deletion?? Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Incidentally, a redirect to Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod would be a perfectly fine outcome of this AfD, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is performed by ordinary editing, not by deletion. The AFD process exists to control the delete function, not to serve as a general discussion forum for anyone with an axe to grind. There is no special problem here requiring deletion contrary to our editing policy and it is frivolous or fraudulent to suggest that there is. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Frivolous or fraudulent"? Really? You know, throwing about such extravagant accusations bordering on WP:NPA is not the way to convince anyone of the validity of your position. As I said in my original comment above, I think this is fundamentally a WP:NOT#NEWS case, which is a valid rationale for deletion. The only coverage that exists is very short term and there is not a great deal of even such coverage either. Nsk92 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the Colonel's favorite arguments: if the result of an AfD is redirection or merging, then the whole AfD is somehow invalidated because those are normal editing functions. Perhaps the Colonel would have preferred that I just silently blanked the article and redirected it to Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod rather than bringing it here for community discussion. Redirection is a form of deletion, and is a perfectly acceptable outcome for an AfD. Also, thanks for pointing out the error in my nomination, I have fixed it. SnottyWong ^gossip 17:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Murder of Hosie Miller. Articles on individual lynchings or racially motivated murders are not against policy (see, for example, Lynching of Laura Nelson and her son, which was a recent DYK). Stonemason89 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is saying that articles about murders, lynchings or other types of crimes are against policy. Such articles are certainly appropriate, provided the underlying event is notable. That's the question here. In this case the coverage of the murder appears to be short-term (July-August 2010) and only in relation to the Shirley Sherrod resignation controversy. IMO, that makes the story about Hosie Miller's murder a WP:NOT#NEWS case, at least for the time being, that can be mentioned in Resignation of Shirley Sherrod article but which does not deserve a separate article just yet. If there is evidence of significant prior coverage (before the resignation controversy), I'd be in favor of keeping this article, maybe under a new name, as you suggest. otherwise I think one needs to wait and see if there are still instances of significant coverage something like 6-12 months from now. If yes, a separate article about the murder would be appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Murder of Hosie Miller. The notability is in the event, and so the article should be renamed. Keep as multiple reliable sources refer to this event. Notability does not expire. LK (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not the Self-defense killing of Hosie Miller? Sherrod and her family say it was murder, but are there any unbiased sources saying so. Location (talk) 13:46, 2 September 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.