Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lee Parrott

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 move. Whatever this is, it isn't a bio article on the Judge. I am persuaded by the keepers that there are enough secondary sources for a notable article. However, there is sufficient precedent that such articles should be based on the event not the person. Disappearance of Madeleine McCann moved from Madeleine McCann is a case in point. The new article, obviously, concentrates too much on the Judge but I am now looking to the keepers, and other interested editors, to sort the article out or else I suspect we could be here again. TerriersFan 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee Parrott

Article about a judge that made a controversial decision. The judge himself is non-notable and both provided sources concern the controversial case rather then judge. One could argue for an article about the case (although I would not) but an article about the judge cannot be justified. In addition, this article has been listed at the BLP noticeboard here. CIreland 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article in current form per nom. Possibly write about the case (if you can find a few more reliable sources), but not the judge deciding it. Very few exceptions (John Sirica comes immediately to mind.)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The case itself only returns 8 unique hits [1], although charmingly, one from morons.org. The judge, however, returns many more hits, a number from reliable news sources. It isn't a strong one, but it certainly passes WP:V. The thing is, this case isn't just A Random Case where there was, as there always is, some judge who passed judgment. The case revolves around the alleged bias and misjudgment of the judge himself, and its notability revolves around the judge rather than the citation line of the case itself. RGTraynor 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and is there an agenda for having this article? Thanks! --Tom 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national news interest in the case. In this particular article, the importance is primarily the conduct of the judge, and the article is appropriate in his name. The material presented is factual.That readers may draw negative conclusions about the person is not a fault of the article or of WP. BLP prohibits only unsourced negative information. DGG 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article lists three independent sources. Over 600 ghits for "John Lee Parrott"+lesbian. I don't see the problem here. ~ Infrangible 01:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and RGTraynor , BUT . . . from what I recall of this case, the article is not really written in an NPOV manner. As I recall, there was a little more to his ruling than "I don't want you to have the kid cuz your a lesbian". I forget the details just now but I recall that 1) he was applying a strict interpretation of the state law against same sex marriages that, in his view, somehow also extended to adoptions and 2) he argued that the adoption petition had come to the court fraudulently since the woman applied as being "single" even though she had been in a live-in committed relationship with her partner for several years. Personally, I do not sympathize with these arguments. In fact, one could even argue that the two arguments are mutually contradictory. If the same sex marriage ban is that holy, then she was just being mindful of that law in stating herself to be "single". But still, the point is the article needs to be much more comprehensive about all of that in order to reach NPOV status. I don't have time to work on it right now, but I may get to over the weekend if no one beats me to it. Mwelch 03:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete So Wikipedia is devolving to a point where people who disagree with any judge's ruling will simply post a hit piece on them here. This case has not gone to any higher judicial body, and did not set any type of precedent that will affect future rulings. I had a traffic ticket a few months ago, maybe I need to create an article for the police officer and the city solicitor. This is a BLP, and the rules clearly state that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a single event does not give a person notoriety. Dougdeal 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you call posting information published in many dozens of reliable sources "devolving," then you're probably right. BLP, however, does not mean "we can't say anything negative about a living person." We are absolutely free to quote reliable sources to that end. As it happens, the article's been massively rewritten to sound quite sympathetic towards Parrott; calling it a "hit piece" is grossly inaccurate, unless you mean that it now slams the lesbian mother hard, an assessment with which I'd agree. RGTraynor 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has changed since I last read it, and no longer has the biased point of view of the original poster, however I am still against it because it is not an encyclopedia article about John Lee Parrott, it is a news story about the incident with Emily Rose and Ms. Hadaway. What was John Lee Parrot's law school? What was his undergraduate degree? What year was he born? What is his judicial philosophy? What, other than this ONE case, has Judge Parrott presided over? How old is he? What was the margin of victory of his last election? When was his last election? These are questions that one would find an answer to in an encyclopedia article about John Lee Parrot.Dougdeal 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dougdeal. A well cited article on the incident could be OK, but this one is ostensibly an article on the judge, and isn't close to that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now. Doug makes a good point but all those matters could be easily added in. It may however make more sense to merge this to an article about the incident. JoshuaZ 17:16, 13 June 2007 (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.