Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade R. Meisberger


 * 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, per lack of proper sourcing to show notability and BLP concerns. Glass  Cobra  16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wade R. Meisberger

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article doesn't currently claim any sort of notability, but it used to state that the subject was convicted of murder until this was removed by the subject (and original author of the article). Very few references out there, and while the article used to cite some they were vague in the extreme. Fails WP:BLP1E. Hut 8.5 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep/rewrite As the article stands, it doesn't even claim notability and could have been speedied. However this appears to be because all the significant information was removed by someone with a conflict of interest. The person does actually appear to be somewhat notable per Google search, because of his lawsuit (with a co-plaintiff) against a prison policy forbidding inmates to receive porn, soft-porn, and explicit materials. The case is called Wade Russell Meisberger v. State of Indiana. See [news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/topedon71106cmp.pdf findlaw], CNN, etc. If the subject doesn't want this stuff on Wikipedia, he shouldn't have made himself famous by bringing this lawsuit. --MelanieN (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest the lawsuit doesn't look notable either. Even if it was notable the article would have to be about the lawsuit and not him. Hut 8.5 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C T J F 8 3  GoUSA 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete but an article on the legal issues mentioned above might be okay. I don't think articles on criminals are a good idea generally. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with User: ChildofMidnight that an article on the legal issues may be more appropriate. This subject is at most notable for only one event.-- Pink  Bull  03:16, 26 February 2010 (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.