770:(from original creator of article) Tend to agree with points that the legal precedent is the main ongoing notability so the article could be renamed but not sure on the technicalities, should it be Albert Haines vs Mental Health Review Tribunal, or vs WLMHT NHS? nb as noted there are several legal events involved - the decision to allow the hearing to be public, the hearing itself, and the decision to publish the panel's conclusions. If the article is kept soon I'll put all the sourcing inline, I've already pruned back the sections. Incidentally I have drastically pruned back an existing article John Hunt mentioned above which had a lot of repetitive/unreliable sourcing and offtopic/excessive detail; seems by a similar rationale that should be renamed Campaign for John Hunt or something.
381:? We shouldn't be so quick to delete articles only because they are not notable to our personal knowledge. Mainstream media and the above journal think it is notable as well as others. I also added it to two projects that may wish to chime in, being more familiar with the notability level. They are quiet projects so they may take a while to get here. As I said above, it does need to be a BLP so a re-name may be in order.--
839:
I have to hold my hands up to the sentence about Savile, but it's not about the hospital per se but the fact that a victim of childhood sexual abuse was sent to a hospital being co-run by a celebrity sex offender. Broadmoor is currently subject to major investigation over that so who knows what might
679:
it could be an article on Albert Laszlo Haines vs Mental Health Review
Tribunal, better still a couple of paragraphs in an article on mental health law in the United Kingdom. Newspaper sources are fine, but using the transcript of the tribunal as a source, as this article seems to do, would count as
643:
As pointed out though, the legal verdicts state that they hinged on biographical and clinical facts about Haines as an individual, and in addition he was personally the focus of some of the national press articles. I agree it needs to be kept in the context of its main source of notability which was
698:
I don't see how it's a 'clear' violation since the case was clearly notable and he was clearly at the centre of it, legally because the two hearings state that they turned on his background not just technical points of law, and in the media where some articles were mainly about his background &
542:
which is in the see also, this might look more like it was meeting notability. If the legal precedent itself were notable, as per
Ochiwar's suggestion, most of article's content would have to go, and need a least one source still. What might be potentially salvaged would need rewrite for NPOV, and
291:
From journal Mental Health
Practice as sourced: "While Mr Haines's plight captured the imagination of the press for a short while, the principle of whether such hearings should be held in public will have wider ramifications for mental health services". And the key point is that legal precedent is
795:
is wholly irrelevant. Haines himself is a NN mental patient, but his case is a legal precedent. We should have an article about the case, which will need to give a considerable amount about his career. Merging it into the artilce on tribunals would be likely to unbalance that article.
699:
diagnoses & very long detention (including personal interviews with him). Above I've also evidenced ongoing general repercussions noted in journal & media. The published tribunal documents are listed in sources but most of the article is from the summaries in the media.
644:
the legal process. But you point out the John Hunt article, well that seems to have some excessive level of details, sourcing to local papers etc, bound up in advocacy, even if it does have loads of tedious-to-create inline sourcing which I don't tbh see would add much here.
816:
Agree re. the content that mentioned Jimmy
Saville. When I was reading the article I thought that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. I can only guess at the reason why that was included-- maybe to make that hospital sound bad or something, who knows.
357:"Legal history" gets set all the time in British courts, that's how "precedent" works. It does not mean that every single ruling is notable, and it does not mean that people involved are notable. Again, what justifies having a seperate article?
221:. He is notable for setting a legal precedent. He is well covered by RS but the sources should be moved inline. A rename may work as 'Albert Laszlo Haines Tribunal' or something similar. The tribunal is notable even if Mr. Haines is not.--
334:
Well for one thing following from the precedent, notorious Moors murderer Ian Brady was also granted a public hearing which has been all over the news for weeks as you may know. National coverage linking that to Haines's case includes
292:
not just a bare fact but, as stated in the official documents sourced, was dependent on the complex lengthy detention & psychiatric diagnosic issues involved with this particular patient which is why it was granted to him.
52:. Only reason I am not moving it immediately is it's not obvious to me what it should be moved to. I'll try to remember to check back here in a week or two, and if it's not moved by then, I'll move it to something. --
166:
395:
I agree and I also think GiantSnowman repeated his question without having really addressed my answers. And also stuck the article up for speedy deletion with obscene haste rather than "as a last resort" per policy.
733:. An article that isn't a regurgitation of other facts repeated in many other places. Probably why I found it so interesting. Even if it gets deleted, thanks for writing it. I might well take a copy, in case it is.
620:
and you are willing to made the required changes: remove bio content, reword to a more NPOV, then there is a better case to rework the article to describe the legal precedent rather than a bio, instead of deletion.
844:, guess it could have a sentence or two about right to public hearings now. I note that article is massively out of date and was completely missing systemic changes made in 2008 - I've added a bit & tagged it.
270:
article - but the individual concerned appears not to notable by
Knowledge (XXG) standards. I can see no justification for having a biography on an individual based solely on a single legal ruling, per
462:
422:
160:
747:
Btw it's not a transcript of the hearing but a fairly brief judicial summary of key findings. I have though as implied added what I called a third party legal summary of it.
119:
841:
267:
482:
442:
126:
373:
I would assume that both the medical and legal fields would consider this case notable. Does
Knowledge (XXG) only include notable fancruft articles like
543:
renaming of the article as already mentioned. I can't foresee anyone being willing to do this anytime soon on such a niche topic, so overall, delete.
92:
87:
598:
Highly irritating to say no one bothered to work on it while voting to delete my hard work without having even noticed the sources let alone read.
96:
79:
616:
What I meant is that no-one was likely to be willing to do the further work on the article that was being described above. If you have no
17:
181:
506:
148:
939:
539:
509:. The topic is certainly notable. Perhaps the title of the article could be changed to something other than a BLP, such as
339:"Albert Haines, 52, made legal history when he successfully argued that his case should be considered at an open hearing".
877:
to err on the side of caution for children and incapacitated persons. On the other hand, the case could be notable. A
970:
40:
142:
951:
853:
834:
805:
779:
756:
742:
708:
689:
653:
638:
607:
585:
560:
522:
494:
474:
454:
434:
405:
390:
364:
348:
325:
301:
284:
250:
230:
212:
61:
935:
being cited frequently - the sheer number of cases that have cited it alone can be a metric of a case's importance
336:
138:
83:
889:
here is that precedents, even if only remotely followed or limited to extreme cases today, can be notable, see,
738:
801:
685:
188:
361:
322:
280:
247:
209:
966:
36:
913:
874:
870:
535:
906:
75:
67:
202:
734:
386:
226:
174:
845:
771:
748:
700:
645:
599:
397:
340:
293:
154:
901:
895:
818:
797:
681:
622:
569:
544:
672:
272:
198:
947:
849:
775:
752:
704:
649:
603:
518:
490:
470:
450:
430:
401:
358:
344:
319:
297:
276:
244:
206:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
965:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
917:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
826:
630:
577:
552:
886:
617:
722:
718:
382:
318:
independently notable? What justifies having a seperate article, as AndyTheGrump says?
222:
882:
378:
374:
909:. How do cases or rules of law become notable? We don't have a strict checklist (
534:, and suspect does not meet bio notability per arguments above. A sense of possible
943:
792:
514:
486:
466:
446:
426:
113:
57:
926:
being cited in news articles, blogs, well-respected commentary, or
Restatements
878:
511:
Albert Laszlo Haines vs Mental Health Review
Tribunal (UK legal precedent)
840:
come out, but of course it could be removed (by anyone right?). Agree re
932:
being taught in case studies or briefs in law school or legal education
717:
Tend to agree with Martin
Poulter that the tribunal transcript, if not
54:
869:. It's quite clear that this person is not notable, according to
538:
and non NPOV when reading the page. If we had a lot of refs like
959:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
337:
Ian Brady set to have public mental health tribunal hearing
463:
list of
Behavioural science-related deletion discussions
197:
PROD contested by article creator; I believe this fails
109:
105:
101:
173:
423:
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions
187:
50:keep in order to move to an article about the case
842:Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales)
268:Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
973:). No further edits should be made to this page.
566:There is a list of refs, I didn't see it before
505:. A number of medico-legal first in the UK as
8:
729:is probably marginal. But I'd still vote to
481:Note: This debate has been included in the
461:Note: This debate has been included in the
441:Note: This debate has been included in the
421:Note: This debate has been included in the
725:third party. Notability of this individual
721:, is a bit heavy - without the filter of a
483:list of People-related deletion discussions
881:could be notable solely for its effect on
480:
460:
440:
420:
443:list of Law-related deletion discussions
920:), but some factors do count, such as:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
873:. We also have had a long-standing
266:is probably worth discussion in our
940:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (events)
24:
680:original research, would it not?
938:In a pinch, we can always go to
923:being a case of first impression
513:or something along those lines.
929:being written by a famous judge
540:John Hunt (psychiatric patient)
791:and purge -- The reference to
1:
990:
952:14:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
62:02:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
962:Please do not modify it.
875:informal practice at AfD
854:13:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
835:11:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
806:10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
780:15:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
768:Keep but possibly rename
757:01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
743:23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
727:in Knowledge (XXG) terms
709:22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
690:21:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
654:01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
639:23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
608:22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
586:20:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
561:20:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
523:18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
495:16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
475:16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
455:16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
435:16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
406:22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
391:16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
365:16:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
349:16:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
326:16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
302:15:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
285:15:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
251:15:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
231:15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
213:15:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
243:be notable; he is not.
907:Rights of Englishmen
618:conflict of interest
314:notable? How is the
76:Albert Laszlo Haines
68:Albert Laszlo Haines
671:Clear violation of
669:Cut down and rename
902:Meinhard v. Salmon
896:Sherwood v. Walker
48:The result was
497:
477:
457:
437:
981:
964:
942:as a guideline.
831:
823:
635:
627:
582:
574:
557:
549:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
989:
988:
984:
983:
982:
980:
979:
978:
977:
971:deletion review
960:
885:. The ongoing
827:
819:
631:
623:
578:
570:
553:
545:
316:legal precedent
264:legal precedent
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
987:
985:
976:
975:
955:
954:
936:
933:
930:
927:
924:
921:
867:Move or smerge
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
809:
808:
782:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
745:
735:Martinevans123
712:
711:
693:
692:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
611:
610:
591:
590:
589:
588:
525:
499:
498:
478:
458:
438:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
368:
367:
352:
351:
329:
328:
305:
304:
288:
287:
256:
255:
254:
253:
234:
233:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
986:
974:
972:
968:
963:
957:
956:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
934:
931:
928:
925:
922:
919:
915:
912:
908:
904:
903:
898:
897:
892:
888:
884:
883:legal history
880:
876:
872:
868:
865:
864:
855:
851:
847:
843:
838:
837:
836:
832:
830:
824:
822:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
807:
803:
799:
798:Peterkingiron
794:
790:
786:
783:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
765:
758:
754:
750:
746:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
710:
706:
702:
697:
696:
695:
694:
691:
687:
683:
682:MartinPoulter
678:
674:
670:
667:
666:
655:
651:
647:
642:
641:
640:
636:
634:
628:
626:
619:
615:
614:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
587:
583:
581:
575:
573:
567:
564:
563:
562:
558:
556:
550:
548:
541:
537:
533:
532:No references
529:
526:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
501:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
459:
456:
452:
448:
444:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
407:
403:
399:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:Abbey Bartlet
376:
375:Julian Bashir
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
363:
360:
356:
355:
354:
353:
350:
346:
342:
338:
333:
332:
331:
330:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
299:
295:
290:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
265:
261:
258:
257:
252:
249:
246:
242:
238:
237:
236:
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
211:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
59:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
961:
958:
910:
900:
894:
890:
866:
828:
820:
793:Jimmy Savile
788:
784:
767:
730:
726:
676:
668:
632:
624:
579:
571:
565:
554:
546:
531:
527:
510:
502:
315:
311:
310:How is this
277:AndyTheGrump
263:
259:
240:
218:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
914:WP:MUSICBIO
871:WP:ONEEVENT
528:Weak delete
161:free images
203:WP:NOTNEWS
967:talk page
887:consensus
879:precedent
507:seen here
487:• Gene93k
467:• Gene93k
447:• Gene93k
427:• Gene93k
383:Canoe1967
223:Canoe1967
37:talk page
969:or in a
673:WP:BLP1E
536:advocacy
273:WP:BLP1E
239:The law
199:WP:BLP1E
120:View log
39:or in a
944:Bearian
918:WP:PROF
846:Sighola
772:Sighola
749:Sighola
701:Sighola
646:Sighola
600:Sighola
515:Ochiwar
398:Sighola
362:Snowman
341:Sighola
323:Snowman
294:Sighola
248:Snowman
210:Snowman
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
821:Lesion
789:rename
625:Lesion
572:Lesion
547:Lesion
312:person
262:. The
260:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
723:WP:RS
719:WP:OR
677:Maybe
359:Giant
320:Giant
245:Giant
207:Giant
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
948:talk
891:e.g.
850:talk
829:talk
802:talk
787:but
785:Keep
776:talk
753:talk
739:talk
731:Keep
705:talk
686:talk
650:talk
633:talk
604:talk
580:talk
555:talk
519:talk
503:Keep
491:talk
471:talk
451:talk
431:talk
402:talk
387:talk
377:and
345:talk
298:talk
281:talk
227:talk
219:Keep
201:and
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:not?
911:cf.
530:--
241:may
189:TWL
118:– (
950:)
916:,
905:,
899:,
893:,
852:)
833:)
804:)
778:)
755:)
741:)
707:)
688:)
675:.
652:)
637:)
606:)
584:)
568:.
559:)
521:)
493:)
485:.
473:)
465:.
453:)
445:.
433:)
425:.
404:)
389:)
347:)
300:)
283:)
275:.
229:)
205:.
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
946:(
848:(
825:(
800:(
774:(
751:(
737:(
703:(
684:(
648:(
629:(
602:(
576:(
551:(
517:(
489:(
469:(
449:(
429:(
400:(
385:(
343:(
296:(
279:(
225:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
55:Y
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.