Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Washington Jr.


 * 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-- JForget 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Earl Washington Jr.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:COATRACK and NN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but the article does need work. I can see news articles from 1994 to 2006, 679 in total. From the limited view (without paying money) via google news archive they appear to cover him, his life, the sentence, a campaign to free him, the pardon and the subsequent compensation. Appears to be ample to make a neutral and quality article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to significant coverage in the media, including the NY Times, Washington Post, and PBS Frontline, a widely-reviewed book has been written about Washington and his case. Hal peridol 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not really WP:COATRACK, article seems notable. Chris!  c t 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable source, the neutrality of point of view may be solved by improving this article and not by deleting it, which will just destroy knowledge — Esurnir 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage given to notable innocent man sentenced to death through prosecutorial malfeasance. FCYTravis 03:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep not coatrack. WooyiTalk to me? 04:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't seem that biased to me, if at all. Definite keep though as it is clearly notable.Alberon 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any COATRACKiness or bias. Exactly what about it did you feel was COATRACKy.Red Fiona 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject seems to be a notable person and there is nothing wrong with the article that I can see. Steve Dufour 22:01, 30 October 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.