Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moorov v HMA


 * 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 keep.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Moorov v HMA

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unable to find more than passing references in mainstream media. Don't think Wikipedia is the place for every non-notable legal doctrine. Bongo matic  13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The doctrine certainly is notable with it being mentioned in being featured in a bbc story in which a quadruple rapist was set free beacause of it, discussed in the Parliament of Scotland with regard to the rape , and being featured as an article in The Law Society of Scotland's Journal . If need be the page could be renamed to the Moorov Doctrine, but I feel that it is fine as it is now. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs considerable more background and explanation. DGG (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No Wikipedia policy requires mainstream references, AFAIK.  In case people think the case is unreferenced, the first sentence provides two references for it (Justiciary Cases and Scots Law Times; note that not all cases are reported in either of these, they are reserved for "the most significant decisions"). JulesH (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know Scottish law, but if the statement The case established a precedent named the Moorov doctrine in the article is true, the article should be kept.  Any case that establishes a precedent significant enough to be called a "doctrine" is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. That article doesn't necessarily need to be exclusively about, or entitled with the name of, the case.  For example, there could be (but there is not, at the tiem I write this) an article on  the Moorov doctrine.   If such an article existed, and the Moorov v HMA was in as sad shape as this article is, I would support a merge.   But not a deletion. TJRC (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (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.