Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick


 * 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. Early close per WP:IAR; result is clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing in the article indicates anything noteworthy or unusual about this 19th century trial that justifies a stand-alone article, proposed deletion was challenged MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an important article drawing attention to the extreme social disparity between the judge and the judged in 19th century industrial areas in England. It is particlularly significant because part of the reason for Mary's harsh sentence was her "common" i.e. low-class quality. The comparison between the homes of those involved should make some of this clear. This article was created as part of the Women in Red movement. Not all notable women have been middle or upper class and not all notable women have achieved worthy aims. Sometimes the lives of poor 19th century women of the lowest class can represent much that was wrong with society in those days, and there is a notability in articles which clearly draw attention to that. I suggest that you read it again, and see what the article is really about. There was plenty of public interest in this case, as you can see by the number of news articles referenced in the article. Storye book (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nothing unusual about the trial in the article, a look at the contempary sources dont mention the social disparity between the accused and the judge or jury who found her not guilty of murder but guilty of robbery. I couldnt find anything that compares the background or even the size of the houses they lived in, that appears to be original research. Justice Hawkins clearly didnt live in a slum but nobody thought to mention that at the time as it was not unusal. Nothing I can see in the contempary reports indicates she was dealt with any different then hundreds of others. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Tons of contemporary RS coverage - more modern sources would be welcome. The wildly POV treatment, extrapolated from the sources, does the article no favours, but it is right that the subject is "Trial of ..." not a bio. Suggest WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:SYNTHESIS apply. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a murder case would clearly have newspaper coverage at the time, but it would be interesting to known why you think the trial was unusual or noteworthy for the 1880s. We dont as a norm cover every murder case that the accused is found not guilty and no unusual circumstances. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The normal reason we "don't as a norm cover" things is that nobody can be bothered to write them. User:Iridescent has done a couple of Victorian female criminals, whose names I can't remember, who have survived Afd. Links, anyone? Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination), and its predecessor, may be what you are thinking of. There was a single AFD for three articles. Thincat (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's it, Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Possible sources are:
 * Not sure how much coverage but they should get the topic past the "lasting coverage" hurdle of WP:NEVENT. That said, the 'theme' which has been presented appears to be WP:OR without some modern scholarship (which sources like the above may address) is presented to substantiate the claim rather than the simple juxtaposition (which might raise some WP:NPOV issues in the article as written) used in the article and is not a policy based reason to keep the article. Jbh  Talk  17:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much coverage but they should get the topic past the "lasting coverage" hurdle of WP:NEVENT. That said, the 'theme' which has been presented appears to be WP:OR without some modern scholarship (which sources like the above may address) is presented to substantiate the claim rather than the simple juxtaposition (which might raise some WP:NPOV issues in the article as written) used in the article and is not a policy based reason to keep the article. Jbh  Talk  17:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much coverage but they should get the topic past the "lasting coverage" hurdle of WP:NEVENT. That said, the 'theme' which has been presented appears to be WP:OR without some modern scholarship (which sources like the above may address) is presented to substantiate the claim rather than the simple juxtaposition (which might raise some WP:NPOV issues in the article as written) used in the article and is not a policy based reason to keep the article. Jbh  Talk  17:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep A historical event of lasting interest to historians, per the sources noted in the !vote just above. NPOV/OR concerns can be smoothed out through ordinary editing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I was going to remark on the Williams and Godfrey book but Jbh has beaten me to it. (It has a picture too.) I agree the article needs considerble rewriting but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Update. I have removed all or most of what may be construed as POV or synthesis material. Thank you for the above recommendation of books. The first Irish one is not useful because, although Mary Fitzpatrick's family was of Irish descent, the book is about Irish law, and Mary was tried under English law in England. However the second book is extremely useful. I have added it at the bottom of the article and am in the process of preparing material from it to add to the article. This may take me a day, please be patient. Please let me know if there are any more problems. Thank you everyone for your help so far. Storye book (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:ITSINTERESTING and it's premature to prod and AfD an article on the same day it's created, particularly in the absence of any discussion on Talk: about how to resolve any problems.  But otherwise I just don't have an answer to the nomination here: I can't point to anything "noteworthy or unusual about this 19th century trial" which would otherwise justify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Update 2 I have now added all available information that can be had via Google Books (the online version being incomplete). I have also used the same source as an extra citation throughout the article where appropriate. The book had extra information about Fitzpatrick's post-trial life, which I added in. The contemporary 1882 published sources and the Williams 2018 book contain conflicting information about Fitzpartrick's real married name, and I can only check that by purchasing both marriage certificates. This process takes a couple of weeks, so please bear with me on that detail. Meanwhile I have favoured Williams' version in the article. I am going to have to purchase the book too, because the missing bit at the beginning of the section about Fitzpatrick will make a difference. Please let me know if there is more I can do to resolve this matter. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * snowball keep. Very well structured and written article which gives a good insight into a relatively sensational event of ~137 years ago. I err strongly on the side of retaining this since a couple of lines of notability can be argued (widespread coverage contemporaneous with the event, and later inclusion in Williams and Godfrey), and because such an article improves wikipedia, which is the main point of us being here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: "relatively sensational event" ? - Woman gets let of murder but is done for robbery, hardly sensational. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the above; there is an abundance of RS on this. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @MilborneOne. The sensation of 1882 relates to the fate of the victim, the mystery of how he lost his life, and ultimately the sadness of it all. He lived in circumstances of poverty and very hard work, and somehow at the young age of 24, acquired a little wealth which he wore publicly as gold ornament to show his success. Glass blowing is a skill which would certainly have needed the standard apprenticeship of seven years, and his family would have had to support him in that - funded perhaps by his elder brother William who had kept an eye on James' movements a little that day, and knew where his notebook was. So Richardson appears to have been a youngest son who was well cared-for, and who had justified that care by saving up to buy a watch and chain. Look up the value of a solid gold (not plated or rolled gold) Victorian Albert chain today (e.g. here). The trial had a high court judge because of the loss of a valued son of the community. A sensational event can be about loss and doesn't have to be about what happens to the perpetrator. This is why the article is about the trial, and not a biography. (I should add that Fitzpatrick's biography could have been worth writing separately as well if we had known more about her). Storye book (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2019 (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.