Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Frederick Windham

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.

William Frederick Windham

William Frederick Windham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The guy had a large inheritance, so his uncle tried to disposses him of it after he married a woman sometimes described as a "courtesan". The very little coverage that exists focuses more on his wife, and what exists seems mainly to exist because he was rich enough to get a professionally made portrait of him and his wife. If anything the coverage around his trial falls under the rubric of Wikipedia not being a newspaper. This might be the oldest invocation of that policy, but the coverage still all basically constitutes routine news coverage John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The case was described in The British Journal of Psychiatry as "a significant event in psychiatric history"... Also the subject of multiple works. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:HEY. Obviously notable thanks to Philafrenzy's additions. The nominator's characterization of news coverage of extraordinary events as "routine" is puzzling. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Was notable enough before
  WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It has improved considerably. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current version demonstrates notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2020 (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.