Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Administration Miranda-warning proposal

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Administration Miranda-warning proposal

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

Deprodded page on a proposal, which seems to have been an off the cuff remark by AG Holder in a TV interview. In any case, the page is a WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:COATRACK with no secondary sources making the same claims. Abductive (reasoning) 03:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miranda Warning#Public safety exception without a redirect. Although this may need to be recreated later on if it actually is a proposal, an off-hand comment is not enough for its own article. If it is considered important, two lines in the main article is more than enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A month ago I would have said delete, but now either a weak keep or a merger would be appropriate, as it seems to be an important change in legal policy. Lawyers are talking about this; it was a heated debate in my college's faculty room. I'd like to hear from others before doing anything drastic with this attempted article here. Comments anyone? Bearian (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject regards an off-handed comment by Holder, which is not policy, and not worthy of its own article. If a policy is created, we can always create a new article on the subject. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, strange though that may be for a legal article. If this becomes a cogent policy proposal, an article would absolutely be appropriate -but we're not there yet. Anything about this proposal that doesn't yet exist would be speculation at best. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with delete. The nom and arguments have convinced me. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (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.