Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Martin


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Colin Martin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject's notability is not clearly established. There doesn't seem to be much coverage on him apart from contemporary news reports, which suggests that this may fall under BLP1E. His role as author may contribute to notability, but apart from this Sunday Mirror article, which refers to the book as "best-selling", I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent sources. Paul_012 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  -- Paul_012 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  -- Paul_012 (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as the quoted book was written by him, so may not give the entire circumstances of his conviction.Red Hurley (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If kept should be renamed to "imprisonment of", "Colin Martin case", etc. Spent eight years in prison for a crime he maintains he did not commit. (Source) Blamed for the murder of a New Zealand ship captain in 1997. (Source) "Dozens of Irish supporters and relatives have campaigned for the release of Mr Martin, who spent two years in leg irons and contracted tuberculosis while in Chonburi prison [...] visited by a number of Irish people and helped by the Commission for Irish Prisoners Overseas". (Source). -- can  dle &bull; wicke  06:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The book is also mentioned here and here. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  06:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The first mention you provided of the book is only in passing, and the second by the publisher, so neither contribute to establishing the book's notability. As for the event itself, I'm not sure whether the coverage is significant enough, or if WP:NOT should apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Still delete  as lots of people write books and lots of people are wrongfully convicted. I am sorry for his trouble but he is not notable.Red Hurley (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: struck duplicate 'delete vote'.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: I have read the book. Apart from that And, I believe that the article is notable as a biography, at least.
 * And am somewhat doubtful about the validity, about the following comments:
 * "so may not give the entire circumstances of his conviction.Red Hurley" : Nothing on wikipedia, gives the entire circumstances about anything, is my claim.
 * "Spent eight years in prison for a crime he maintains he did not commit." : The wikipedia article does not state "he maintains he did not commit", and I can not recall the book saying that. (Yes, there was a fight. And yes, he does not remember exactly .... And yes his opponent disappeared into the dark, wilderness after some fighting.). A major issue in the book, is that he should not have been convicted by Thai law. One reason was that there were no witnesses who showed up at the trial.
 * --Hyllevare (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. Having read the book, what exactly is it that you think makes the subject notable? And when you say biography, are you referring to the biographical book or a biographical Wikipedia article about the person? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Still Delete  - it's not biography, it's autobiography, and see Autobiography for the natural concerns. You say "Nothing on wikipedia, gives the entire circumstances about anything, is my claim." True, but it has to be notable as well, and this one ain't.Red Hurley (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The above has already suggested deletion before the 1st relist. Only one vote per user counts. -- JForget 00:26, 10 April 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.