Talk:William Hetherington case

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 24 December, 2005, see discussion.
keep, 8 July 2008, see discussion.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Am not sure about this one, I suspect the original contributor could be pushing an agenda (note especially "Given the circumstances, many believe that the conviction was wrongful and that his wife lied." "Many"? Where is the source? "Given the circumstances" needed to be precisely explained)

Also, from a couple of media articles I have seen(but only one that I can actually link to), it looks like "wrongfully convicted" may be a little strong. As far as I can tell, the status of William Hetherington as "wrongfully convicted" is speculative and has not been upheld in a court of law. However I'm not removing it from the "wrongfully convicted" category: I'm prepared to admit there may be significant support for Hetherington - I'll leave it up to someone with more knowledge of the case and public opinion about it. Georgeslegloupier 14:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]