Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Adams (wrongly jailed)


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Adams (wrongly jailed)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. His sole claim to notability appears to be a murder conviction and its acquittal, which is supposed to have been one of the first in which jurors testified. I don't think this minor legal precedent, if it is, related to his trial really calls for a biography, though. Delete. Dominic·t 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--per nom, basically. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article gives two reasons why the case is notable (though of course the title must be changed--possibly to the name of the case?) Pme is that it is the first time that jury members have been asked to give evidence about their role in a trial in the uk -- the conviction seems to have been due to the personal bias of one of the jurors. There surely are more sources: the court of  Appeal publishes its decisions.    DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A legal precedent such as this can well be considered notable. Per DGG. Edison (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, as I hinted in the nomination, I haven't actual seen this described in any sources as an actual legal precedent. I think what is more likely is that the single news source used as a reference for this article noted in passing that it was the first time trial jurors testified for an acquittal hearing, and that remark became the basis for a biography about a supposed "legal precedent." That fact does not appear significant enough to have been reported on by any other news outlets, much less been the subject of any actual news itself, and so it does not seem to merit an article. Besides which, there is nothing in this seeming legal precedent that should lead to a biographical article; there are no real biographical sources, just incidental news reports on the acquittal. Dominic·t 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable source meets WP:GNG. A murder conviction overturned due to jury misconduct appears to be notable and he is still making news after his release. If he weren't notable, the theft probably wouldn't have made news.  DGG, here is the link to the Appeal's decision: . I would be OK with a name change, but I don't think Afd is the appropriate forum for it. Location (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. The fact that his sentence was overturned doesn't suddenly make him much more notable than any other convicted murderer/murder suspect - speaking as an English law student, the EWCA (Court of Appeal) looks at dozens of appeals of this sort a year. It also doesn't help that the central source is the Daily Mail, a newspaper which is chock full of "Miscarriages of Justice and Other Reasons Why The Government And Judiciary Are Bad". I find Location's argument around this to be flawed; the fact that a local northern newspaper thinks he's notable means we should? Really? We set higher standards in some ways than national papers, nevermind local rags. Providing the bailii judgment is similarly useless; almost all cases at that level are noted by one of the Law Reports. The fact that it appears on BAILII doesn't make it notable, it makes it clear that the judgment is a EWCA one. Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this article, as the person is known only for this unfortunate event. Any precedent set by the appeal case can surely find a better home. Kevin (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. One reliable source, no source to verify that his case set a legal precedent. Does not pass GNG, fails BLP1E. Lara  17:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's another classic WP:BLP1E. I'm not seeing any other reason for this subject to be notable, Also, there's a dearth of reliable sources, as Lara notes - A l is o n  ❤ 00:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Ironholds is absolutely correct. Mr. Hed 00:47, 26 September 2009 (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.