Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(1) WP:OR - the entire article is the work of the editor, the same thing as an editor writing up a book review about their favourite novel. It is offensive to have WP editors doing this sort of work, doing their own distillation/paraphrase of case reports. All such articles have no place on WP and should be removed; (2) no source (apart from the subject itself) Sirlanz 23:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- The article gives no indication of notability. However, if the article could be improved with an explanation of why this case is notable (assuming one exists, ie. it set a legal precedence) then I would change to keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- The nominator's reasoning confuses me. Are you saying that the case is made-up? A Google search shows that it is real.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting the case is a fabrication. Notability is also not the basis of my nomination.  The article is a paraphrase/distillation of a case report.  It is entirely the editor's original work.  The extraction from an official case report of a case's essence (which is what this editor has done) is precisely what lawyers, judges and academics attempt to do.  If any article about a case report is to avoid breach of WP:OR, it must cite such independent analysis, e.g. as published in a law journal.  Notability could also come into play in this case (though I've not attempted to research this angle) because the article offers no clue as to any impacts it has had in the community, development of new legislation, etc., or any controversies that may have resulted from it, i.e. no real-world context has been provided.  sirlanz Sirlanz 00:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. 5 non bot editors in 6 years totaling 10 edits. A legal case of no great importance that I can see. No refs in the article. Best left to the legal books. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2017 (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.