Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bain (innocent prisoner)


 * 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   merge to Innocence Project.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

James Bain (innocent prisoner)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

I'm going to go ahead and put this one here, because this man has been the subject of a number of news stories today for being exonerated of rape. However, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E seem to apply. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BLP1E, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am Czar of all Russias!)  09:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Undecided, I'm unclear about the usual practice here. Compare Innocence Project and the cases mentioned there. The case should at least be mentioned at that page BTW. Perhaps it would be best to create Innocence Project of Florida and move the content of the article nominated for deletion as one section there. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note press coverage: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=James+Bain --Pjacobi (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, but WP:INTHENEWS. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all against recentism and using Wikipedia as news portal, which is unfortunately rather widespread. Added the search link as the article itself would need improvement, whether kept, moved, or merged. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I took you as making a deeper point but stand corrected; and the link is helpful because the (innocent prisoner) in the article's name makes the autogenerated search links useless. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd keep or merge with Innocence Project - he's the record holder. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge: I added a link from Innocence Project and noted that he's the "record holder", as Bearian points out. I think that's very notable but wouldn't claim there's enough here to keep the page separate. PeterHansen (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. His post-release comments and the fact that he's the record holder cause to satisfy notability requirements. -- Pink Bull  04:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete or merge with Innocence Project, not notable enough for own article. Boleyn3 (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2009 (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.