Talk:Imprisonment of Roger Shuler

This article should be deleted

This article should likely be deleted based on its subject's "newsy" nature and non-notability as an event. While Shuler's arrest and imprisonment did generate some news coverage, it is unlikely to have lasting historical significance. Further, the fact that most reliable sources covering the event date from a burst of coverage in early 2014 suggests that continuing coverage is unlikely. Finally, this situation is analogous to coverage of a criminal act; although there are other issues implicated in Shuler's arrest and imprisonment, at its base this is a criminal act and has generally been treated in non-opinion sources as such.

If no response is forthcoming, I will recommend this article for deletion. Dyrnych (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Erm, maybe. You might be right. A WP:AfD discussion would certainly be quite justified. Article'd probably be kept is my guess, on the basis of a New York Times article and totality of the other refs, plus his status as the only person in the Western Hemisphere on the (what I think is still the most current) Committee to Protect Journalists list. You never know, though. You also have a WP:BLP argument in that, although I tried to be evenhanded, there's really no way to avoid Shuler coming off kind of badly in some respects, notwithstanding being a martyr of sorts, and you could make the case that at the end of the day he's just an idiosyncratic private citizen and doesn't deserve to be exposed to public scrutiny in the world's most popular encyclopedia. There's also the issue of "Rileys's son" and the "the woman"; although I didn't name them, I suppose it'd certainly be possible to find their names somewhere (certainly for the former), and an article here greatly increases the visibility of the (certainly salacious and, according to a judge, defamatory) claim about two completely private citizens, and it'd be hard to have the article make sense if you redact that material. So, reasonable WP:BLP case on those grounds also.

On the other hand, it's not just a oddball-criminal human interest story. There's First Amendment aspects which the New York Times noted and the argument could be made that that makes it of encyclopedic value if you're looking into application of law in that area in 21st century America, even if no further significant discourse on the case is forthcoming.

And some might be. I don't see right offhand any further buzz on the case since the article was written and I suppose he's still sitting in jail. However, the case will presumably be resolved in some manner eventually, and further commentary may be forthcoming then. Maybe it'd be best to wait until the case is resolved and see what develops in terms of significant coverage then. Herostratus (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: The case was unsealed, so the original complaint is public record and so it is indeed fairly easy to get the name of the the plaintiffs for anyone who cares to. Also, he was released in March, to little mainstream press notice that I could find right off. An arrest warrant has recently been issued for him and from there the trail goes cold. Any road, the case is probably over and so there's no need to delay opening up a deletion discussion if you want to, and the relative lack of mainstream notice of the end of the case would be another possible point. Herostratus (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll go ahead and start that discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphan article message

Please help this orphan article by adding links to it in related articles and lists. Once it has an incoming link from at least one article or list, the orphan tag can be removed (disambiguation pages, redirects and draft articles do not count). Three or more incoming links are ideal. The Find link tool may help, but not in all cases.

JoeNMLC (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)