Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gordon Purvis

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. Nishkid64 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Gordon Purvis

John Gordon Purvis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Tagged for speedy on the righteous grounds that it is completely and utterly opinionated and POV. Is it wirth rewriting? Doesn't look it to me. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I admit I was a bit hasty with the Speedy tag, but as you say, it's not worth re-writing. It's not an article with a few POV bits, instead it appears that the majority of text on the article is POV-orientated. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be re-written. I presented the facts on Purvis' life briefly and the facts on the Hamwi murder and its results. If it sounds amateurish, make it professional.

Perhaps you could change the article to THE HAMWI MURDERS or something. I based the article on the book THE WRONG MAN: A TRUE STORY by Kevin Davis, a non-fiction book documenting the Susan Hamwi-Shane Hamwi murders. It is unfortunate that Johnny Purvis was merely coerced into a confession by threatening police officers when there was no evidence of his being on the scene of the crime. I think it miraculous that they caught the real killers, when they discovered that Paul Hamwi had paid $14,000 to Robert Wayne Beckett and Paul Serio to kill his ex-wife to get out of paying child support. I don't think the article should be taken down. I think it just needs someone to present it more professionally.Corey Bryant 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The point of view of the article, that John Gordon Purvis was unjustly convicted, appears to be correct. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Being written about in the New York Times is a strong hint that somebody might be notable. -- Eastmain 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The NY Times article and the federal appeals court case cited as well as the book cited indicate he was innocent, his mental condition made it easy to obtain a bogus confession, he was convicted despite exonerating evidence withheld from the defense, and he was imprisoned for 9 years of a life sentence. What is in the article that is POV, given the facts? If the facts are referred to in words that seem pov, well, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," WP:SOFIXIT. Polish those words into the very epitome of NPOV. Inkpaduta 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Case is notable. And interesting. Article is loaded with subjective, "fictional" style, which is possibly why it was mistaken for POV throughout by some members. There are enough factual sources to enable thorough re-write in appropriate objective register. Could be entered as example with other cases on Miscarriage of justice

High Heels on Wet Pavement 12:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The case is notable as shown by the new york timesSlideAndSlip 21:45, 13 February 2007 (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.