Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disputed convictions in the United States


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed convictions in the United States

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

"Disputed" convictions is undeniably POV. The creator of this article is apparently attempted an endrun around the comments made during the AfD discussion here. ALL convictions are "disputed" by someone, such a list would be impossible to maintain and impossible to define. Tufflaw 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think there is scope for an article with this title or something similar. This isn't it, however - it's just an uninformative list. BTLizard 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This in a attempt to fork content from Overturned convictions in the United States. An awful lot of people who are convicted dispute their convictions- pretty much all people who pleaded "not guilty" in the first place. Some are right to do so and some have no merit whatsoever. This article runs a huge risk of being highly POV in terms of who is (and isn't) included. This article title is unhelpful, unmanagable and highly problematic in terms of keeping neutral. WjBscribe 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty much duplicates Overturned convictions in the United States. Someone trying to make a POINT? In the U.S legal system, every conviction is "disputed" unless the accused pleads guilty. Edison 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the cases all have something in common, but that something is too hard to quantify properly. YechielMan 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Edison and WjBscribe: all convictions without a guilty plea are de facto disputed, and it's difficult to see how an NPOV criterion could be created for inclusion vs. non-inclusion in such a list. -- The Anome 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; there is also a Category:Disputed convictions, if this article is deleted then the possibly the category should be renamed. Masaruemoto 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea - the category should probably be deleted as well. Additionally, there is a Category:Overturned convictions, Category:Wrongful convictions, and Category:Wrongfully convicted people that should probably be merged. Tufflaw 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

comment The list in its current form is a disaster, but I could see that with strict referencing (by major news outlets, ect.) this list could turn into a good article about convictions where there is a large movement to overturn a conviction (IE Mumia Abu-Jamal)or a serious dispute (not just the inmate's protestations of innocence. . Wintermut3 07:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per above--Sefringle 21:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - hopeless POV. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this category which is excessively broad beyond the point of uselessness. Almost every conviction is disputed by someone. Any criteria for pruning the list would violate style guidelines regarding arbitrary inclusion critera. Doczilla 00:23, 24 April 2007 (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.