Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McCosker

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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas McCosker

This is an article on an Australian who had guilty verdict on a sex crime overturned in Fiji on constitutional grounds. I doubt this is at all notable enough for Wikipedia, and this definetely warrants a community debate. Harro5 09:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Harro5 09:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Keep, as a result of AYArktos' edits. The case may be notable both for the court case and for the issue about the lack of government assistance given, but if so, it really does need to be rewritten to focus on those things rather than in a Wikinews-like description of the alleged crime itself, which is not particularly notable. Rebecca 10:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite as per Rebecca. I think it is notable but agree poorly written and not referenced properly.--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

also I don't think biographical details required--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Rebecca 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Thanks to AYArktos for the rewrite. A search of an Australia-New Zealand newspaper database gets 21 hits and the importance of the case makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per rewriting. Notability isn't a problem for me. The case has a distinct point. Ansell 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I have worked on it some more. I really think this article should be about the court case and not the person. Firstly there is a matter of respect for living people. Secondly, he isn't notable, the case is. The article probably should be renamed. I have two different citations for the case though :-( Would some of Wikipedian law students like to have a go at it when they have finished their exams? There really isn't much yet on Fijian law, and no case law articles on Wikipedia that I found.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this would be a good move. Perhaps we could engage the Australian law WikiProject to do a bit of work on law in the broader Pacific. Rebecca 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Jammo (SM247) 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that it should be renamed, reflecting the focus on the case, rather than the person. JPD (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AYArktos. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and consider nominating for WP:GA. Thanks AYArktos! (Original creator of the article) Andjam 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to McCosker v The State (of Fiji) -- I@n ≡ talk 04:12, 22 June 2006 (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.