Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elicia Hughes


 * 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Elicia Hughes

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

She was tried for the murder of her husband (unsurprisingly it was reported in the newspapers) and she was er.....acquitted. Why should we care? Docg 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO1E. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Q is the AfD nom broken? The link to this page from the article is a redlink, but leads to this page...  I can't figure it out. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno, looks okay now. Matchups 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * comment I am somewhat, but not totally, swayed by the argument for deletion of this Biography per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT. As I see it, the argument for notability is that the court cases are notable.  I'd be open to "keep" (and move to an article on the case, rather than a Bio) if someone can argue that case is notable, e.g. by setting a notable precedent, for the ruling that he first trial was won by improper jury stacking.  (I see no guideline like WP:N/CA for determining the notability of court cases, but think there ought to be one).  Failing such demonstration of notabiloty for the court cases, I recommend delete per nominator's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no references or clear justification of notability. I personally don't think the court case would be notable either (based only on the information in this article), but agree that there should be an official standard.  Who's going to start that discussion? Matchups 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing any national news coverage to justify encyclopedic notability. It looks to be mostly local coverage which would be normal for such a trial. Can anyone produce broader coverage to suggest otherwise? Gwynand (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather agree with Pete Hurd above - an article on the case may be warranted, but I don't think this, as a standalone article, is really required. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (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.