Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMA v Ritchie and Morren

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.

The result was delete. In the absence of subject-are notability guidelines, we recourse to WP:GNG, a threshold this topic seems not to meet. LAter contributors to the discussion leaning heavily against retaining the article also has weight. Skomorokh 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMA v Ritchie and Morren

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

Contested prod with no reason really to keep. Prodded as no claims to notability or reason for it's inclusion. Article makes it seem like it's just a run of the mill court case with nothing notable. That may not be the case, but the article makes no case for it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no notable information readily available. On a side note, the main author (the only author; the rest are minor edits) of the article has only 4 edits, the last in 2008, which suggests that this is a test edit/vandalism. --PostScript (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MISCLASSIFIED: SHOULD BE SCOTLAND. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I've done a bit of work on the article. Inter alia, I found the original text on google books, and determined that the case was before Scotland's High Court of Justiciary. The standard at WP:SCOTUS and WP:LAW is (roughly) that all cases before a nation's highest court meet WP:N. The article is still pretty crappy, but at least I got it up to WP:N. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I do not know Scots law, but this case appears to raise the issue of the probative value of similar facts in criminal cases. The classic English case is later -- "brides in the bath". This could have been a significant legal precedent, but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article stays, it really needs an explanation as to what the significance of this case was. I assume there was some reason if an 1841 case is being talked about today, but at the moment I'm not sure what. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, being a high-court case. Article needs a lot more work. Owen× ☎ 22:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if the legal and historical significance of this case can be better explained, I think it should be kept and expanded. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 20:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless the nominator (per the deletion policy) made a good faith effort to search for sources that would indicate WP:NOTE:notability (there is no claim that they did, which is usually something you mention if you did). Aboutmovies (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found nothing to establish notability in my search, and the article made no claims to notability at the time. It has been improved upon now, but I still don't entirely see the notability. However this is why these things are brought to AfD, for the community to decide, not one person. Canterbury Tail talk 11:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Andrew has done sterling work to improve this article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the article in Wikipedia , the court at the time, and at the present time also, held sittings of two natures: of the first instance, in which it did not act as an appellate court, and those where it did. From the text of the decision, this was a case of first instance, with the presence of three judges only, not full court. The alternative is that every serious criminal case in scotland is appropriate for Wikipedia. (The case of Leadebetter v. Garnkirk Coal co., on p. 620 of that vol. of reports cited for this [1] , shows it acting as an appellate court. ) Can this be serious intended that memerly being decided by this court is sufficient? --then every case in that vol. will be an article. I do not see that this particular case raises any substantial general issue--and the court must have thought so also, or there would have been the full number of judges sitting. I am not a lawyer, & I may not be judging exactly, but this is my impression. I do not think the rule for SCOTUS reasonable applies here,. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I'm the editor who has been trying to improve this case in response to the AFD, and I admit I'm unable to figure out why it's notable. DGG seems to be correct that this case is not an appeal. As context: Case 109 is labeled "South Circuit". Case 110 is labeled "high court". Case 111 has no such label. All three cases are being prosecuted by "her majesty's advocate". The header in 111 is also used in 112, 113, and 114 -- i.e. our case. 115 "her majesty's advocate" is replaced with "suspender", as the case is a "suspension and liberation" -- apparently, a form of criminal appeal. In 116 it is now the advocator, as the case is one of "advocation and suspension". 117 is likewise. DGG has made reference to case 118 on page 620, which is another case of suspension and liberation.
It's a bit disheartening to have invested so much effort in rescuing the case and yet still be unable to figure out why it's notable. In my past experience, people rarely create articles on legal cases that are unimportant -- but this seems to be an exception. I am going to contact some Wikipedians who are lawyers in the UK, who maybe can access some resources that will resolve this question definitively. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and urge members of Wikiproject:Law to work out a notability guideline for cases. As a general rule I'd suggest that when a court, however important, is acting as a CFI, the case is not automatically notable. I thank DGG for his work on this - I've searched through every legal database I have access to and am unable to find wider coverage of this case in journals, reports etc. Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes a law notability guideline would be very useful in cases such as this. I don't want articles deleted from Wikipedia, but I nominate when I genuinely think there is not real reason to have them and this seemed like one of them. Having a good set of notability guidelines would be a huge plus in this situation. However it would take a lot of work as different court levels in different countries aren't equal to each other, and neither is law. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Delete in reliance on Ironholds's search of UK legal databases. Agree that WP:Law needs a notability guideline for cases, though this one was tricky because it took hours of work just to prove that it wasn't notable. :( Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 02:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find it on two major UK caselaw databases, which provides strong evidence it is not a case they consider worth reporting. As a general rule this is not to say that high court cases are not notable; the notability of each case depends on how widely it is reported, or if it is cited in successive cases as a precedent. RichsLaw (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2009 (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.