Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Peterson

:{{la|Jamie Peterson}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamie_Peterson Stats])

:({{Find sources|Jamie Peterson}})

A convicted criminal, seems to be a run-of-the-mill case, no notability demonstrated Ymblanter (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

: Yes, the article needs some work, however it should not be deleted. Much is being done about this case and its more than "run of the mill." His guilt is highly debated and there is no physical evidence against him, much like the trial of the West Memphis Three of which there is significant info about them on Wikipedia. I can continue to gather more information and develop the article, but it shouldn't be deleted just yet. TinyWing (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

:: It is certainly not going to be deleted within 6 days, and most likely also some time after that.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Move to user-space. Who is debating Peterson's guilt? Where is it being debated? Is there evidence that it is being debated?

:::Suggest that if it is decided to remove the article, it should be moved to user-space so that it can be developed, and not deleted.

:::I have removed the paragraph comparing the case with another case, because it appears to be original research. If local newspapers, etc. have made the comparison, then it can go back, but with citations for source of the comparison.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Addressing the person, this fails WP:BIO and WP:PERP. Addressing the event, this fails WP:EVENT. Current version cites primary sources and Wikipedia. Location (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think there was any intention to cite Wikipedia, that footnote looks like it was intended to be a link - made by someone new to Wikipedia who didn't know how to do it. There is some secondary sourcing, but it's very limited. The article is poor. The author needs to show that the campaign has had some public impact. Also, the author seems to know little about the case, referring to the 68 year old widow who was murdered as "Miss Montgomery". Paul B (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This case is taken out of the run-of-the-mill category by virtue of its false confession claim, substantiated by expert forensic psychologist opinion.. This fact is accompanied by Peterson’s 100% exclusion from the DNA profile which was entered as evidence in the case. Add the fact that the employment of up to 15 police detectives produced no objective physical evidence implicating Peterson.

:Steps are in process to post the transcripts of the trial online in digital form, including transcripts of the actual confessions. This will permit pro and con evaluation, using the original source. As always in criminal trials there are two sides, and it is appropriate for this article to anticipate pro/con debate.

:As recently as July 30, 2012 the Michigan Supreme Court recognized the validity of use of expert psychological opinion testimony to aid the jury in evaluating false confession claims, in People v Jerome Walter Kowalski, Docket No. 141932, saying “ in some instances . . . without the enlightenment of expert opinion the jury's ultimate determination may not be arrived at intelligently.”

:This topic is of current public interest, due to the large number of wrongfully convicted prisoners that have been exonerated in recent years. In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

:This article should be linked to the following Wikipedia articles: “National Registry of Exonerations” and “False Confessions.”Big Al 300 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some great suggestions above and we can address them all. We can add to the article where Peterson's guilt is being debated, where she is called Miss Montgomery, what the campaign is currently doing, etc. The author (me) knows plenty about the case. However, I am new to Wikipedia. It takes time to compile everything. I am making mistakes about citations, etc. I have more citations to add as well. It was suggested above that the article be moved to a user-space to be developed, and as I was unaware of such a space, I agree that would be an appropriate move as it might take several weeks to polish it. I appreciate some of the work other Wikipedia authors have done on it. Thank you. I would also like to add the links that Big Al 300 mentioned above. I agree with what Big Al 300 has to say and hope we can continue to see this article developed adequately for Wikipedia. TinyWing (talk)TinyWing —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Not exactly a run of the mill case, but there is not sufficiently widespread notability to overcome BLP problems. The article--and this discussion--are being used for arguing one side of the case; they may well be right, but that is not our role. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 3 February 2013 (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.