Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dale

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

• The result of this AFD is to merge any important information to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and redirect James Dale to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. This is a non-amdin closure contact me if I have erred. New England ^{(C) (H)} 00:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Dale

James Dale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a good exemplar for the proposed guideline WP:HARM/WP:PSEUDO. This person is notable for one event in his life: his dismissal from his position in the Boy Scouts of America, and subsequent lawsuit, all of which is adequately covered in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies and in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Basically, the biography here is a coatrack article; it violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight because it concentrates on one aspect of his life, and it is unlikely that sources will be found to establish any further information about him. As with all WP:BLP articles, we have to be extremely careful about providing balanced and accurate biographies. Walton^One 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Agreed this individual is non-notable at this point in his career other than for the controversy described inBoy Scouts of America v. Dale. But rather than simply deleting all content of this brief factual article, the content referenced to the two reliable and indendent references should be merged to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale because the information is non-harmful and consistent with WP:BLP and provides context. Edison 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• This is a non-issue. Just redirect to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. We don't need a deletion debate to do that. --Tony Sidaway 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I felt we needed the debate because I suspected it would be a controversial move, and because WP:PSEUDO is not yet an official guideline. Walton^One 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand, but it's normal practice to hold such debates on the talk page of the article. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per all statements above. And Walton is to be commended for being careful. --David Shankbone 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. In this case, there really is no information not already in the court case article, so Tony is right... but careful never hurts. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge obviously a duplicate article. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect Mukadderat 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Oysterguitarist 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - being involved in a single incident like this is best handled within one article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I see no problem in using AFD for this type of tricky merge, but it shouldn't be a first resort. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the law case and redirect, this is a fairly uncontroversial example, even without the proposed guideline--and I hope it is not quite correct to say "not yet an official guideline" DGG (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as he's gone on to the pride-parade-and-lecture circuit. Bearian 14:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I strongly disagree with the nom's statement, "This is a good exemplar for the proposed guideline WP:HARM/WP:PSEUDO." Under current policies and guidelines, there's no reason to have a separate article on James Dale. JamesMLane t c 15:42, 13 July 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.