Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iorworth Hoare (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge to A v Hoare.  MBisanz  talk 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Iorworth Hoare
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Queried AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: The legal case concerning limitations on tort actions is notable and rightly has an article at A v Hoare. However I don't see that notability is inherited from the case to anyone involved in it, so that aspect is WP:NOTINHERITED. Nor does someone else's conviction for death threats convey notability on the object of these threats and similarly for acts of vandalism. The kernel here is the personal biography which remains built around one set of circumstances (lottery win while under detentive punishment), a WP:BLP1E combination for which I feel the arguments in the 2008 AfD and deletion still stand. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Hoare's notability is as follows:
 * as a lottery winner, cf. Michael Carroll (lottery winner)
 * for his crimes, which aren't by themselves notable
 * for his notoriety in view of the two factors above combined
 * for forming a major change to tort law A v Hoare - the judge in this case made it clear that it was the depravity of Hoare's crimes that made the change in law possible - this was not merely a change in law that happened to involve Hoare, but rather a change in law predicated on Hoare's depravity and pre-existing notoriety.

The first AFD (2008) took place prior to the latter point, however in view of the former, he has remained notorious and featured in a large number of news reports since the AFD. Sumbuddi (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only one of Sumbuddi's bullet points that belongs in an an encyclopedia is the last, and that is rightly covered in an article about the legal case rather than the defendant. The rest is simply tabloid sensationalism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively to A v Hoare- the material in the article about the case would be useful background information in the court case article. WP:CRIME says that we shouldn't have separate articles about criminals if the material on them can be covered in some other article. In this case the subject's notoriety derives from the lottery win and subsequent court case which set a legal precedent, both of which can be covered in the article on the court case. He doesn't meet the further standards at WP:CRIME as his victims weren't famous and the motivation/execution of the crime wasn't enough to make it a historical event.  Hut 8.5  09:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the point here is that Hoare's crimes were not notable, his notability is as a 'nasty' lottery winner, so it doesn't really fall under WP:CRIME as the notability is not from the crime. The facts of his crimes are secondary to the basic 'bad man wins lots of money' issue. He features in at least three separate books   with regard to the philosophical question of the morality of essentially punishing a 'bad' person again by depriving them of their otherwise legitimate lottery winnings. This is an entirely separate point from A v Hoare which allows a victim to wait until the criminal has money before attempting to sue them. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. The most effective, efficient way to persuade other ediotrs that an article is a keep is to expand & source the article with solid, properly formatted references, as per WP:HEYMANN.  After doing this, you leave a comment at end of the discussion starting with WP:HEY, and briefly describing the improvements you've made and sourcing you've done. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can use those links to argue that he's become famous as some academic problem in philosophy. The first one is a school textbook on critical thinking which uses it as an illustrative example. The second one is a very brief passing mention and the third one is basically an extended opinion piece by Jeremy Kyle and as such is essentially worthless as a source for anything. Hoare's notability aside from the court case is just that he's become a bit of a hate figure in the tabloid press, which isn't a good justification for having an article on someone (WP:NOTNEWS and even WP:BLP).  Hut 8.5  09:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * reluctant keep Glanced at the article (bare urls, sex offender) and at the AFd, and decided to go with the very reasonable-looking merge proposal above. But I have the conscientiousness thing, so I ran a quick search first, just to make sure. This lowlife draws far too much press over too many year to delete ('Lotto rapist' Iorworth Hoare guilty of resisting arrest - BBC News[www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-37764544], Oct 25, 2016.) Even has own sobriquet: "Lotto Rapist". My search on "lotto rapist" here: . E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge The A v Hoare article covers the notable aspects of law. The "lotto rapist" tag is tabloid sensationalism. The rest of the article fails under WP:BLP1E. -- HighKing ++ 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: There appears to be considerable notability here; agreed with Sumbuddi that the point of law at issue in A v Hoare is only a subset of the reasons this person is of encyclopedic interest. This is an individual whom members of the Wikipedia-using public are potentially likely to want to read more about than would be contained in an article about a legal decision if there was a merge. There is obviously plenty of coverage outside the mere tabloids; for better or worse, this fellow seems to be more than just a WP:BLP1E. -  Julietdeltalima    (talk)  22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to A v Hoare. Info from his bio could easily be used to flesh out the legal article. Joyous! | Talk 03:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect as this is all about 1 legal case of which has its own article therefore therr's nothing here suggesting its own convincing substance. SwisterTwister   talk  03:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * keep - Per WP:GNG. Per good sources. Per overall notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This was a notorious case at the time. It seemed unjust that, having become a wealthy man through a lottery win, Hoare should not compensate his victims.  The article on the law case is an unsatisfactory one, since the House of Lords heard a number of appeals each raising a similar issue of Limitation of Actions, which ideally should be discussed in the case article.  Quite what happened after the appeal hearing is not clear to me, though I expect there was something in the press at the time.  The case was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration (I have just added that detail).  If it was likely that the judge would order the case to continue, I would guess there would be negotiations, leading to the case being settled out of court.  The article may need pruning.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to A v Hoare. WP:ONEEVENT case, nobody would have heard of Hoare if it weren't for the court case.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Selective merge to A v Hoare. What is not related to the case is tabloid journalism.  Sandstein   20:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to A v Hoare or, failing that, delete. Classic coatrack; there's very little to say about Hoare himself that couldn't just as easily be said in A v Hoare. The original crime isn't notable. Winning the lottery is, but only because the circumstances that led to the court case. The subsequent tabloid coverage is an inevitable result of the court case but confers no lasting notability. There's nothing to build on here. Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.