Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hetherington case (3rd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ  21™  21:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

William Hetherington case
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All of the sources on the page are either original research or dead links. Perpetualization (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both the findarticles.com links are dead, yes. So I've corrected one to be a reference to the actual original (offline) article.  I can't immediately find out the details of the other one so easily, but it presumably exists.   Morwen - Talk 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Possible Keep - A Gnews search produces a number of hits which, on the basis of the abstracts and word-counts (the full texts are unavailable to me), appear to contain significant coverage on the topic:, , . None of these articles were published within a 5-year margin of the trial, so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to apply to them. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm find with there being an article, but it can't be the sourceless one that currently exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Offline sources, and source behind paywalls are acceptable as references so it is untrue that this article sourceless. Sources do not have to be online although that is handier and preferable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least tentatively; it appears adequately sourced. Everyking (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * . Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Insight article already in the article is accessible for those with Highbeam accounts. Also see, and  if you have Highbeam access as two more magazine articles about the case.  Add to that the coverage behind other pay walls as mentioned above and we have sufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2012 (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.