Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hetherington case (2nd 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. Shereth 20:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Hetherington case[edit]

Article is about a man who claims to have been wrongfully convicted of spousal rape and sentenced to an inordinate amount of prison time for it. I've searched online, but the only thing that looks like a reliable source is an account that was already the only source for the entire article (there are two references, but they're to different pages of the same document); everything else is blogs or advocacy (spelling?) groups. I know it's not a good enough reason for deletion itself, but I should note that the Orphanage has tried to de-orphan this article, and there's nothing to which to link it. The article was previously kept in AFD over New Years' 2005/2006: the four "keep" or "do not delete" votes were all either "it's helpful" or "cleanup and expand", with no valid reasons for keeping even provided. Overall, I nominate for deletion because, as the nom in the previous discussion said, the case seems unnotable and the article seems written to push an agenda. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the POV is definitely questionable, but the make-or-break problem I see is lack of assertion of notability. Is this one of the higher-profile cases ever prosecuted relating to spousal rape? Or perhaps precedent-setting? Or the focus of a controversy or outrage? (There are few reliable sources about it online, but plenty of opinion pieces). If so, then that needs to be added to the article, and it should be kept (and probably linked to from spousal rape). Of course if it's kept, the POV probably needs to be addressed. If it's "just another case", then I don't see how it's notable -- we don't have articles on every rape or murder trial in the history of the US. -- Avocado (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About 6 google news hits, 5, 10 or 20 years after conviction. There's a Judge William Hetherington who rules on rape cases, so crafting a good query is hard, may be more relevant google hits. The Miami Herald article says "William Hetherington is the talk of talk radio." Warren Farrell mentions it in this book. With the source in article, this seems sufficient.John Z (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per ~~User:Fabrictramp~~ User:John Z --T-rex 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rex, you possibly meant 'per John Z'. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite - significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.