Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic Arthur Martens


 * 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. As the article now stands, it is a WP:BLP1E of an otherwise low-profile individual who was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. While BLP1Es are permissible in a few cases where the person had a significant role in a major event, I cannot see that this is one of those exceptions. It is possible that the case should have an article, but that would be a different article from this one, and merely renaming the article does not resolve the issue. As such, I am closing this in accordance with Hasteur's concern. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Frederic Arthur Martens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not seem to meet the high bar needed for including the wrongly convicted, per WP:CRIMINAL. While it might be suggested that we rename the article to be about the case, I am not finding sources that indicate WP:PERSISTENCE. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(I removed the copy of the talk page that I had added, was a bit clumsy, and is still at the talk. Tuntable (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC))


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CRIMINAL the pilot is not a renowned figure (ie. someone famous before the incident). The event itself lacks persistence so does not appear to have had lasting social impact. WP:NOTNEWS on the national news headlines. This could become notable if he is written about in books in the future, or movie made about him, or the case is overturned causing a corrupt judge to be disgraced or sent to jail, etc.. out of the ordinary that impacts wider culture. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is notable because was a major story, and was widely reported at the time. (The first three pages of a Google search on Frederic Martens Conviction produces about 30 hits.) More importantly, it is important because it reflects the working of the Australian legal system. It resulted in severe criticism of the AFP and public prosecutor by the appeals Judge Chesterman. Public scrutiny is rarely available, so events like this provide important insights.  (The article could well be renamed.) Tuntable (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Googling "Frederic Martens" Conviction leads to only 63 results. And some of those are just headline links to existing articles, because there are systems set up to generate links to headlines with "sex" (and similar terms) in them. And some of them aren't about this Frederic Marten at all; there was a Pennsylvania Crime Commission Director with that name, so his name shows up with the word Conviction on some pages, as does a Russian lawyer of the same name, and there are general catalogs, such as PeekYou telling you that they find 14 people with this name. Not doing an exat count, but it looks like less than half of that 63 are about this Maretns. (Googling with the middle name in place brings 23 results, some of the duplicates of the other search.) Google News Archives finds just three articles


 * Trying to use it as an example of problems with the AFP doesn't fit in with the encyclopedic method. Do we know this is the pattern with the AFP? If so, we know that because of statistics, and we should present the statistics in the appropriate place. If we don't know that, using an anecdote to try to assert it is misleading.


 * If it could be shown that this case had some actual impact, if (say) laws were significantly changed and the force cleaned up as the result of this, that would be one thing. But seeing that the articles I'm finding on the case are all from 2009, it seems that this lacks WP:PERSISTENCE. It absolutely should not be here under the name of the falsely accused and I'm not seeing cause for it to be here at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we have already discussed the problem with the "Frederic Martens" Conviction search. Most articles refer to him as "Frederic Arthur Martens" and thence Martens, which your query will not match.


 * Telling people about how the world works is exactly what and encyclopedia is about. We do not want to have a winge page, but backed up by appeals court judge comments I think it offers important insights. Tuntable (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I already responded to the middle name concern above: "(Googling with the middle name in place brings 23 results, some of the duplicates of the other search.)" Even Googling his full name without the word conviction brings a grand total of 24 results. In other words, it doesn't add significantly to the sparse results. If this is "how the world works", then you should have sources on how the world works covering more than one data point, and an article on the greater topic should be built from those sources. Wikipedia is not a place for original theories. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, this is an important data point about "how the world works". It does not and need not be a complete theory of everything.  If the article was titled "Corruption within the AFP" that would be different.  But it is not, nor is it intended to be such an analysis.  It is supposed to be a clear, complete, unbiased review of the facts of this one case.  Any discussion of its significance to the AFP belongs on the AFP page.  But providing the full details of this case would clutter the AFP page and put undue weight on this incident.  Yet the details of this event are important for people to be able to make up their own minds as to its implications. Tuntable (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who sez this is an "important data point"? We have standards for deciding that, judging the notability of events, and this is failing to meet those standards. We do not include every court case so that people can "make up their own mind about the implications." -Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have to agree with Tuntable. But the article needs a copy-edit and perhaps even complete rewrite session.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article certainly needs work, but first lets get past the delete arguemnt. Tuntable (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unfortunately, the way this article is currently written it's significantly failing the BLP policy. I'd prefer to have the article deleted and an unencumbered version be written as this one is just plain wrong at this time. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on how you think that it fails BLP, and what improvements you would like to see. That was not the original issue cited by Nat Gertler.  (Renaming the article to focus on the event rather than the person might certainly be a good idea.) Tuntable (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)



Sorry, let's start again. I had (& I believe User talk:NatGertler) have misunderstood WP:CRIMINAL.


 * A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

I would agree with that. Martens himself does not warrant an article, but the incident does. As previously suggested, the article should be renamed. (I cannot see any other article that it should be merged with.) Tuntable (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you read further in WP:CRIMINAL:
 * Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:


 * For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime 
 * The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event


 * As I stated in my initial AFD submission, the event lacks persistence, which both condemns the inclusion of the article on its current subject and causes strong notability problems on the incident as a subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2013 (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.