Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Bardwell

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. Opinions are evenly split here between the BLP1E argument, and those arguing the volume of news coverage. The BLP1E argument has not been refuted, and in this case the policy arguments outweigh those based on more general notability. Kevin (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Bardwell

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

Article on a local Louisiana justice of the peace who yesterday refused to issue a marriage license to a mixed-race couple. No notability other than this event. The article is contrary to WP:NOTNEWS, as well as WP:BLP1E; in addition, there are serious WP:COATRACK issues (e.g., "Bardwell insisted that he is 'not a racist' and claimed to have 'piles and piles' of black friends who use his bathroom.") I would suggest merging to another article, but the truth is there's not much worth mentioning apart from the basic fact, already covered in articles such as Miscegenation ("Nevertheless, as late as 2009, a Louisiana justice of the peace refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, justifying the decision on grounds of concern for any children the couple might have."). This would be another outstanding candidate for Wikinews, however. TJRC (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a clear violation of WP:BLP1E, which would remain even if all the other issues were cleaned up. It may be that this story will be deserving of a WP article (though that's not clear yet), but I don't think there's reason to have an article about Mr. Bardwell. -- Narsil (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't a BLP, this is a brief media frenzy out of which someone has attempted to produce a BLP. A biography does not consist of regurgitated media news stories centered around one event. RMHED 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the event itself may be notable enough for a section in Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, as a biographical entry, unless this becomes a major Supreme Court case, neither this person or event requires an article of its own. Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that this is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as event itself is notable for mention in Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. As per the policy WP:BLP1E this individual does not warrant a biography at this time. If other events takes place as a result of the denial of the license then he may warrant his own biography. Currently he doesn't. Nolamgm (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is big modern day news, as though there are many who disagree with interracial marriage, there are few if any instances of government officials breaking the law to not marry someone. --rock8591 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment. He was also involved in a controversy about the ownership of the land beneath a local stream. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless that was reported upon in a secondary source, it's not worthy of note in the article. We don't report on every thing a judge does during their career even though you could reference it to the primary source court documents (or in this case, the AG opinion). Postdlf (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable due to massive press coverage—but it's worth noting that the article could potentially be restructured as an article on the controversy rather than the individual. Everyking (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable due to the large news and reactions it's getting now as well as the issues rock8591 and Eastmain brought up. Kuralyov (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom has it right. The standard "look at all the press coverage" arguments above carry no weight unless they can demonstrate that this is not: WP:NOT#NEWS & BLP1E, which are policies conceived directly to address incidents which garner lots of news coverage. The WP:COATRACK stuff is also problematic. Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete borderline WP:NOTNEWS but clear WP:BLP1E. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I could see this article being reshaped/renamed into an article about the controversy. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep, I understand the WP:NOTNEWS concerns, but it's too early to tell whether this will be a flash in the pan or a sustained topic of interest as he is investigated, sued, etc. Which could be taken as an argument to recreate it only if more reporting happens, but I'd prefer to keep it and revisit the issue in a month or more rather than jump the gun and delete it. He's already received international coverage, and despite characterizations above that this is really about "one event" or a "controversy," he is the controversy, and the "event" is that his continuing conduct and attitudes have finally been publicized because the most recent of four such couples he denied a license finally complained. It isn't like he's one of many doing this in modern day America (as far as has been reported at least). The coverage is solely about his conduct and words, which are...unusual...for a member of the judiciary and public official in 2009. If deleted, it should be moved to user space so it can be updated as his story develops further and recreated easily once it crosses whatever threshold it needs to for moving back to article space. Postdlf (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my comment to unqualified "keep," per my comment below and links to further coverage. Postdlf (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per Nolamgm. Sperril (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:BLP1E --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reshape into an article about the controversy. Autarch (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Denial of marriage license to interracial couple controversy or something like that, and remove biographical detail re Justice Bardwell that is not of direct relevance to the case. --Lambiam 22:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not really a "controversy" unless there is at least a contested point, and there isn't any serious debate as to whether interracial marriages should be permitted in the U.S. Perhaps an "incident," but not a "controversy" except in the loose, pejorative, and sensationalistic sense of that word meaning "something shocking and/or worthy of criticism." Postdlf (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:BLP1E. FWIW, the event itself is mentioned in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. 68.167.191.43 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain the article on Keith Bardwell. People rely on Wikipedia for information. Government officials should not be in charge of approving or disapproving what people choose to do within the law, and Wikipedia editors should not be in charge of denying information to people who are seeking it. The Deletion Policy is well thought out and articulated. Yesterday it might have applied to this situation. Today it doesn't. The concern has been mooted by a market issue, demand. Rammer (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the article on Keith Bardwell. People who read the news articles about Keith Bardwell are probably curious about the man and where else would they go to find information on the man? I would bet this article has had many thousands of hits since it was put on Wikipedia. Drearlmurphy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drearlmurphy (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the individual is notable even before the recent event. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this story could have mushrooming political implications. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recent stories report that Governor Jindal has called for him to be fired and that Bardwell stands by his denial of the license. This story (and WP article) is really about the man, not an "event", and particularly since he is recalcitrant it's going to continue. We can expect coverage of the judiciary committee's investigation of him and civil rights lawsuits at a minimum. This isn't going to go away. Postdlf (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and shuffle relevant content to articles on miscegenation (or Loving v. Virginia). Everything else belongs on Wikinews. The case is fascinating, but the man in question is a flash in the pan at the moment.--Carwil (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only time will tell if this person is notable enough to get a biographical wikipedia entry. If, in another few months, the person is still even remembered at all, a new article may be started. Wikipedia is not a news/current events site. 68.101.143.168 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E and NOTNEWs apply here. Any relevant information can be merged into another more appropriate article. AniMate^draw 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to note Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that essay. In this case, I don't think it is relevant. The information can easily be incorporated with original writing into another article and the history of this article needn't be preserved. AniMate^draw 17:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you mean; I would not typically associate that with the term 'merging'. But why not use what we already have? Skomorokh, barbarian 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why err on removing the story? Err on keeping it. I came to Wikipedia to read more about the man, and the presence of the entry on him is helpful. All too often in the past have I tried to read an article that was on Wikipedia, only to find that it's no longer there do the desire of people who like to delete. Err on the side of keeping articles there. The presence of the article helps some. The lack of the article helps no one. -antispook 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antispook (talk • contribs)

Keep I consider him and this controversy to be notable enough to have an article here on Wikipedia. I would not be opposed to it being renamed, however. But the controversy deserves its own article. Michaelh2001 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: In the level of government where he works, Bardwell would be notable only for the outrageous thing he did to the couple. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename: I don't see that he's particularly notable. But the incident clearly is. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear-cut failure of WP:BLP1E. Individual has done nothing of note other than show his ass on the national stage by refusing the license and will soon fade into the nothingness he so richly deserves. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the incident is pretty notable and much covered news; a rename is possible as well -- Shadowolf (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable incident. If needed, a renaming should be made. Artichoker^[talk] 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Renaming may be necessary. However, the individual has international coverage. There's no NOTNEWS issue because the matter is having real substantial impact on the political and legal landscapes more than that of a simple flash in the pan news event. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important news story, and will continue to be one for some time, since Bardwell hasn't resigned and apparently it will take a long time to remove him from office - if that happens at all. Perhaps the article should be renamed, since Bardwell probably wouldn't be notable except for this one incident. But the article should certainly remain in Wikipedia, either under the present name or a different name. Krakatoa (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real notability here. This is one 'flash in the pan' news story that will have little or no relevance a year from now. Additionally, this article claims to be about Keith Bardwell but it is, in fact, solely about this one incident and has little in the way of other biographical info. Ithizar (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename. Keith Bardwell is not himself notable other than this one event, so we should not have an article about him; it's a coatrack on which to report this incident. And yet, this incident is notable - to refuse to marry a couple of the grounds of race is shocking, which is why his refusal has garnered umpteen column inches. The article should be reworked under another title or else merged somewhere such as Interracial marriage in the United States, perhaps as the beginnings of a new section on Opposition to interracial marriage in the United States. Fences&Windows 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You intelligent folks who want to delete Bardwell need to consider the question posed by William Butler Yeats in "Among School Children": How can we know the dancer from the dance? Besides, in 4 days this article has received >5000 hits (see Henrik's hitcounter). Rammer (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many hits is not by itself an argument for notability. That's especially the case when one is dealing with a subject of a recent news event. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for voting to keep the article. Rammer (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that I'm agreeing it should be kept and yet think your argument is a bad one isn't a good sign. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom pretty clear BLP1E violation if you ask me. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content. The story is notable, but does not justify two articles (the case and the judge). Information could go on either one, I'm neutral on this. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why are we trying to predict now whether this will be a story of lasting interest? Right now, it's interesting enough to attract a reasonable quality of editing, and useful content is resulting. If it turns out not to be needed, so bad; if it is, we'll be sorry to have lost it. ciphergoth (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It would appear that the only thing the subject is notable for is refusing to officiate at an interracial couple's wedding, and instead referring them on to another JP. This is clearly a distasteful act on the subject's part, but it is also clearly an example of one event. I accept that the incident may be notable, but the person - who serves as the subject of the article - is not. I'd also add that this is a good example of why 1E exists, as it would be next to impossible to balance the weight given to this event in the article, simply because nothing else he's done has come to the attention of reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (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.