Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dellen Millard


 * 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. Article is found to not be compliant with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dellen Millard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entry is not about Tim Bosma but it is about Dellen Millard. It contains serious unproven criminal accusations concerning the murders of three persons. If and when Mr Millard is found guilty of the crimes in which he has been charged, his biography should be considered for restoration. Until then, the publication of these charges might be considered prejudicial, possibly libelous, may be considered contempt of court and may be found to be contrary to Mr Millard's right to innocence before the law until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Frankie Z (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the AfD; this is the best I can come up with for a rationale that the user gave (if I read it correctly, BLP issues). ansh 666 01:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment. None of the reasons for deletion fit any criteria we have. Nothing I read in the article is libelous -- he's been charged with murder and that's what the article states. As for the right to innocence, this does not apply as no judgment has been made in the article. Nothing is written here that would not be published in a newspaper. As for "contempt of court" -- seriously? How so? Has anyone involved in writing the article been called as witnesses? The only criteria we are concerned with is notability and this article may not meet notability requirements per WP:NOTNEWS or something similar. If Millard's only notability is being charged with murder, then he may not be notable and this article could be redirected to any article dealing with the murder.  freshacconci  talk to me  20:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:PERP specifies that we have a rule about not creating permanent encyclopedia articles about people whose main claim of notability is having been charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a conviction actually takes place, but in the meantime it's not appropriate and actually has the potential to become the cause of a mistrial. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article goes against WP:PERP and WP:BLPCRIME. A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. The alleged crimes may be notable when they are proven in a court of law, not before. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2015 (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.