Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case)


 * 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 -- JForget 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod and prod removed. Myself and another editor tried to help the author of this article in bringing it up to standards, 2 weeks later he has done nothing to improve it or provide us with info so we can improve it (see his talk page. The claim to notability in this article is that this person was the defendant in a landmark case, but that's clearly not true (it was a trial case), and the outcome isn't really that shocking: He was accused of car theft, but never intended to steal the car, so he was acquitted on that charge. Not uncommon (that's why we have the crime of joyriding).  Summary: Neither the person nor the case are notable, despite the fluff piece used as a source. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Seems fairly straightforward.  If this gets resistance feel free to poke at me on my talk page for a more in depth explanation.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm not an expert on Irish law, but I'd be very surprised if this is the first time that the doctrine relied on by the defence (theft requires an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property) has come up in the Irish courts.  In any case, the title is misleading - the "landmark" nature of the case is due to the legal definition of theft, not drunken driving. Tevildo (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Written like a novel and unreferenced. This is not just a stub.  Thin  boy  00  @775, i.e. 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Unreferenced & non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:COATRACK (biography intended to introduce the novel defense theory). Fails WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete only claim to fame is involvement in an completely unremarkable court case, and the alleged "precedent" is not even mentioned in the short amount of coverage cited. I can find no additional sources. Hut 8.5 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - a court case can be notable for any of a number of reasons. It may establish legal precedent, it may etablish a de facto precedent in the sense that it teaches lawyers how to acomplish their results by using certain tactics, the case or the results may be infamous in a way that is notable, etc.  However, this article merely asserts that this case changed the law without explaining how.  It seems to have been made by a lower court (a district court in Ireland is the court of first instance, i.e. the trial court rather than the appeals court that usually considers the larger issues).  Therefore I doubt that it changed any legal principles.  The comment that it changes the way drunk driving trials are held in Ireland seems to be a bit of exagerration or is perhaps based on an incomplete understanding of the law.  Every case, in isolation, might be interesting in how it relates to the law and legal tactics but few are notable.  This article would have to argue, and show, why the case is worth knowing about.  Additionally, even if the case is notable it does not make the parties notable.  If it is found notable it should be renamed and directed to an article about the case, not the defendant.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia policy is that we don't pretend that an article on a specific incident is a "biography" of one particular person involved in the incident. If the court case itself is notable, write an article on the court case, and, if necessary, redirect the title to there. *** Crotalus *** 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikidemo is correct. As of now this is a biographical article about a person based on their (unwilling) participation in a legal matter. If someone wants to scratch out the legal case info and present it as a legal case, without the BLP material, then that can be considered separately. --Lquilter (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I attempted to do. My efforts met with no evidence this case was notable whatsoever, and no assistance from the author came.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2007 (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.''