This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
Was this trial really a notable event? Yes, it was widely reported, but that doesn't make it particularly important or significant. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion just yet, but I have doubts over whether this is an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Robofish (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
He is appealing to a higher court, so a final verdict has not yet been reached. IMHO this is a significant case because of its legal implications, but more knowledgeable people than I need to improve and expand the article. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I've seen suggestions that this is the first instance where someone in the UK has been convicted of an offence in relation to something they've said on Twitter. That might add to the notability of this particular case. Adambro (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
On further consideration, I agree that the subject of this article is notable, and have removed the template. It might be considered equivalent to the American case of Horizon Group v. Bonnen, which we have an article on. Robofish (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, notable. Of course, if you really are in the business of blowing up airports, Queen Lizzy is there to shake you by the hand.126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Meta-comment The above deletion discussion is a great example of how Wikipedia would have been the poorer had this article been deleted early on. The case at the time was by definition obscure, but anyone with a basic knowledge of UK legal history would have recognised it as being interesting. Is is precisely this kind of information that Wikipedia should be recording for the public good. Attack such articles on the grounds of factual accuracy or other convention, but think extremely carefully why notability is in question on recently-created articles. --gilgongo (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Intro of article should tell this case is in which country. A person need read background to know this case is in UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)