Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Mullins-Johnson


 * 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   redirect to Charles_Randal_Smith. The material here is clearly considered worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, but the concerns over WP:BLP1E within this debate suggest that a merge/redirect of content is necessary. I am not competent to perform the merge, but the material is available in the history, which will not be deleted. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Mullins-Johnson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

According to WP:BLP1E, articles such as these where the person is notable for one event should be included in an article on the event with the name redirected. In this case, Mr. Mullins-Johnson is only notable for having been wrongly convicted. I'm not sure if his specific case is notable enough to have its own article, but the pathologist that caused his wrongful conviction has dozens of other similar cases to his name, thus there may be cause to include this information in an article about him or the wrongful convictions he has caused. Adam Zel (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —Adam Zel (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Adam Zel (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep &mdash; while the wrongful conviction was a single event, the news story ran for over a year in Canada, and still occasionally pops up. There have been a series of similar high-profile wrongful convictions in Canada, they remain a current topic (see the info box at the bottom of the article for the other names), and many of the names are familiar to the average Canadian. David (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One further thought: this might be a matter of different cultural perspectives. In Canada, the notability of the victim of a wrongful murder conviction (where the victim has served a significant amount of time) is huge &mdash; they're national lead stories for weeks or years, and names like Donald Marshall or Steven Truscott are probably better known than most of our medal-winning Olympic athletes (the Mullins-Johnson case is more recent, but it still belongs in the same group).  I can understand why an American Wikipedian might be puzzled at the notability of stories like these, since for the U.S. media, wrongful-conviction stories are usually minor (if they go national at all) and quickly dropped, and compensation for the victims is strictly limited (in Canada, it can amount to over a million dollars, and the compensation hearings are major national stories in themselves). David (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how the fact that the series of similar wrongful convictions remaining a current topic makes this article an exception to BLP1E? As I said in the nomination, if the series is notable, which I think it may be, then they should all be included in one article together. Report on the event, not the person. Adam Zel (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See my additional comment above, Adam. BPL1E applies only if the person remains a "low-profile individual." If a single event results in long-running notability &mdash; say, winning the Tour-de-France, or assassinating a major public figure &mdash; then it's not applicable. Wrongful convictions don't generally result in long-running notability in the U.S., but they do in Canada &mdash; the last national news story to mention Mullins-Johnson, according to Google News, was only a couple of weeks ago  David (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] Cover the event, not the person." (Emphasis not mine). Adam Zel (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to play devil's advocate, would you then nominate the John Wilkes Booth article for deletion? Perhaps you could argue that he was also notable as an actor, so how about Mark David Chapman?  No rules can be applied purely mechanically, or else we could just use bots to delete articles &mdash; you have to apply some human judgement, no matter how the policy doc is written.  I understand that the final consensus might be one that I don't agree with, but clearly just quoting chapter and verse of BLP1E isn't going to resolve this or any other RFD &mdash; it's just one of many pieces of input we have to consider. David (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a large body of work studying Booth's life, motivation, etc. No such body exists here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of judgement I'm talking about. There's not the same large body for Mark David Chapman, but there probably have been books written about him, so I'm assuming that no one's arguing to delete that article.  Is the Steven Truscott article safe for the same reason (famous for only one event, but several books written and, I think, a television movie)?  Obviously, there's a lot more to discuss than just BLP1E. David (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Booth and Chapman have books written about them among a great deal of other works. Mullins-Johnson does not. Adam Zel (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure deletion is the best course of action here, but perhaps merging the content or redirecting it to another article is. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to and Rewrite as R. v. Mullins-Johnson, the underlying court case per WP:BLP1E, which, as Dpm64 notes, is notable. THF (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks THF. That's an interesting suggestion, but it runs into two other problems: (1) there's not just the initial trial and its resumption years later, but also the forthcoming hearings for compensation; and (2) while Bill Mullins-Johnson's name is well known, the trial name isn't. BIO1E gives some  guidance here: "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." "R. v. Mullins-Johnson" gets 43 Google hits (mostly legal sources); "Bill Mullins-Johnson" gets 352 hits. David (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bill Mullins-Johnson page will redirect to the case after the moving, so the Google search problem isn't an issue. Any civil compensation hearings can be covered in an "Aftermath" section.  I'm not proposing losing any content, just for standardizing how we handle articles of this type.  If there wasn't an AfD pending, I would just be WP:BOLD and do it. THF (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete The point of WP:BLP1E is to recognize that in some instances the amount of media coverage is not the best indication of whether information about the person is best offered in a separate encyclopedia article about the person. Although the coverage is widespread, the person is known for the one event so information about the person is best offered in an article about the event. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to an article about the event will allow people looking for information to find it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Coverage has been sustained over a period of time. As for the name of the article, it is perfectly fine.  This article is about Mullins-Johnson and his wrongful conviction.  It is not about a wrongful conviction, and oh, by the way, Mullins-Johnson is involved in it in some way.  He is the primary subject.  -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge (move content and redirect) to the section in Charles Randal Smith. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and Flo. There is no real need for this BLP to have an article. Wizardman  21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment It's probably a bad idea to look at this article in isolation: need to consider it together with Donald Marshall, Jr., Steven Truscott, Robert Baltovich, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, and James Driskell, all of whom are notable for the same reason, and often discussed together in Canada. David (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the appropriate section in Charles Randal Smith. This individual's wrongful conviction is fairly noteworthy in Canada (and thus is a likely search term, hence the proposed redirect), but not at the same level as those mentioned by User:Dpm64; those other wrongful convictions were specifically related to the individual, whereas Mullins-Johnson's was one of a series of criminal charges (some leading to wrongful convictions) related to the evidence given by Smith.  In other words, it is the event (the conviction) that is notable, not the individual, and all similar events related to Smith should be grouped together.  I'll note that Charles Randal Smith needs some work as well, mainly in linking available sources to the information in the article.  Risker (talk) 23:49, 3 March 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.