Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Laszlo Haines


 * 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   keep in order to move to an article about the case. Only reason I am not moving it immediately is it's not obvious to me what it should be moved to. I'll try to remember to check back here in a week or two, and if it's not moved by then, I'll move it to something. -- Y not? 02:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Albert Laszlo Haines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested by article creator; I believe this fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. GiantSnowman 15:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is notable for setting a legal precedent. He is well covered by RS but the sources should be moved inline. A rename may work as 'Albert Laszlo Haines Tribunal' or something similar. The tribunal is notable even if Mr. Haines is not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The law may be notable; he is not. GiantSnowman 15:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The legal precedent is probably worth discussion in our Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales) article - but the individual concerned appears not to notable by Wikipedia standards. I can see no justification for having a biography on an individual based solely on a single legal ruling, per WP:BLP1E. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * From journal Mental Health Practice as sourced: "While Mr Haines's plight captured the imagination of the press for a short while, the principle of whether such hearings should be held in public will have wider ramifications for mental health services". And the key point is that legal precedent is not just a bare fact but, as stated in the official documents sourced, was dependent on the complex lengthy detention & psychiatric diagnosic issues involved with this particular patient which is why it was granted to him. Sighola (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this person notable? How is the legal precedent independently notable? What justifies having a seperate article, as AndyTheGrump says? GiantSnowman 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing following from the precedent, notorious Moors murderer Ian Brady was also granted a public hearing which has been all over the news for weeks as you may know. National coverage linking that to Haines's case includes Ian Brady set to have public mental health tribunal hearing "Albert Haines, 52, made legal history when he successfully argued that his case should be considered at an open hearing". Sighola (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Legal history" gets set all the time in British courts, that's how "precedent" works. It does not mean that every single ruling is notable, and it does not mean that people involved are notable. Again, what justifies having a seperate article? GiantSnowman 16:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would assume that both the medical and legal fields would consider this case notable. Does Wikipedia only include notable fancruft articles like Julian Bashir and Abbey Bartlet? We shouldn't be so quick to delete articles only because they are not notable to our personal knowledge. Mainstream media and the above journal think it is notable as well as others. I also added it to two projects that may wish to chime in, being more familiar with the notability level. They are quiet projects so they may take a while to get here. As I said above, it does need to be a BLP so a re-name may be in order.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and I also think GiantSnowman repeated his question without having really addressed my answers. And also stuck the article up for speedy deletion with obscene haste rather than "as a last resort" per policy. Sighola (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. A number of medico-legal first in the UK as seen here. The topic is certainly notable. Perhaps the title of the article could be changed to something other than a BLP, such as Albert Laszlo Haines vs Mental Health Review Tribunal (UK legal precedent) or something along those lines. Ochiwar (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete -- No references, and suspect does not meet bio notability per arguments above. A sense of possible advocacy and non NPOV when reading the page. If we had a lot of refs like John Hunt (psychiatric patient) which is in the see also, this might look more like it was meeting notability. If the legal precedent itself were notable, as per Ochiwar's suggestion, most of article's content would have to go, and need a least one source still. What might be potentially salvaged would need rewrite for NPOV, and renaming of the article as already mentioned. I can't foresee anyone being willing to do this anytime soon on such a niche topic, so overall, delete. Lesion  ( talk ) 20:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a list of refs, I didn't see it before. Lesion  ( talk ) 20:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Highly irritating to say no one bothered to work on it while voting to delete my hard work without having even noticed the sources let alone read. Sighola (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that no-one was likely to be willing to do the further work on the article that was being described above. If you have no conflict of interest and you are willing to made the required changes: remove bio content, reword to a more NPOV, then there is a better case to rework the article to describe the legal precedent rather than a bio, instead of deletion. Lesion  ( talk ) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As pointed out though, the legal verdicts state that they hinged on biographical and clinical facts about Haines as an individual, and in addition he was personally the focus of some of the national press articles. I agree it needs to be kept in the context of its main source of notability which was the legal process. But you point out the John Hunt article, well that seems to have some excessive level of details, sourcing to local papers etc, bound up in advocacy, even if it does have loads of tedious-to-create inline sourcing which I don't tbh see would add much here. Sighola (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cut down and rename Clear violation of WP:BLP1E. Maybe it could be an article on Albert Laszlo Haines vs Mental Health Review Tribunal, better still a couple of paragraphs in an article on mental health law in the United Kingdom. Newspaper sources are fine, but using the transcript of the tribunal as a source, as this article seems to do, would count as original research, would it not? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's a 'clear' violation since the case was clearly notable and he was clearly at the centre of it, legally because the two hearings state that they turned on his background not just technical points of law, and in the media where some articles were mainly about his background & diagnoses & very long detention (including personal interviews with him). Above I've also evidenced ongoing general repercussions noted in journal & media. The published tribunal documents are listed in sources but most of the article is from the summaries in the media. Sighola (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with Martin Poulter that the tribunal transcript, if not WP:OR, is a bit heavy - without the filter of a WP:RS third party. Notability of this individual in Wikipedia terms is probably marginal. But I'd still vote to Keep. An article that isn't a regurgitation of other facts repeated in many other places. Probably why I found it so interesting. Even if it gets deleted, thanks for writing it. I might well take a copy, in case it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw it's not a transcript of the hearing but a fairly brief judicial summary of key findings. I have though as implied added what I called a third party legal summary of it. Sighola (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep but possibly rename (from original creator of article) Tend to agree with points that the legal precedent is the main ongoing notability so the article could be renamed but not sure on the technicalities, should it be Albert Haines vs Mental Health Review Tribunal, or vs WLMHT NHS? nb as noted there are several legal events involved - the decision to allow the hearing to be public, the hearing itself, and the decision to publish the panel's conclusions. If the article is kept soon I'll put all the sourcing inline, I've already pruned back the sections. Incidentally I have drastically pruned back an existing article John Hunt mentioned above which had a lot of repetitive/unreliable sourcing and offtopic/excessive detail; seems by a similar rationale that should be renamed Campaign for John Hunt or something. Sighola (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename and purge -- The reference to Jimmy Savile is wholly irrelevant. Haines himself is a NN mental patient, but his case is a legal precedent.  We should have an article about the case, which will need to give a considerable amount about his career.  Merging it into the artilce on tribunals would be likely to unbalance that article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree re. the content that mentioned Jimmy Saville. When I was reading the article I thought that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. I can only guess at the reason why that was included-- maybe to make that hospital sound bad or something, who knows. Lesion  ( talk ) 11:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to hold my hands up to the sentence about Savile, but it's not about the hospital per se but the fact that a victim of childhood sexual abuse was sent to a hospital being co-run by a celebrity sex offender. Broadmoor is currently subject to major investigation over that so who knows what might come out, but of course it could be removed (by anyone right?). Agree re Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales), guess it could have a sentence or two about right to public hearings now. I note that article is massively out of date and was completely missing systemic changes made in 2008 - I've added a bit & tagged it. Sighola (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Move or smerge. It's quite clear that this person is not notable, according to WP:ONEEVENT.  We also have had a long-standing informal practice at AfD to err on the side of caution for children and incapacitated persons.  On the other hand, the case could be notable.  A precedent could be notable solely for its effect on legal history.  The ongoing consensus here is that precedents, even if only remotely followed or limited to extreme cases today, can be notable, see, e.g., Sherwood v. Walker, Meinhard v. Salmon, Rights of Englishmen.   How do cases or rules of law become notable?  We don't have a strict checklist (cf. WP:MUSICBIO, WP:PROF), but some factors do count, such as:
 * being a case of first impression
 * being cited in news articles, blogs, well-respected commentary, or Restatements
 * being written by a famous judge
 * being taught in case studies or briefs in law school or legal education
 * being cited frequently - the sheer number of cases that have cited it alone can be a metric of a case's importance
 * In a pinch, we can always go to Notability (events) as a guideline. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2013 (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.