Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC(HL) 3


 * 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. John254 00:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC(HL) 3

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

This is a British legal case. The case may well be notable, it being a precedent in the law of negligence, during the early development of that area of the law. However, I have concerns with the way the article is written.

All of the commentary on the case is unsourced, and I disagree with the conclusions reached. The final sentence '...the incident was put down as an accident which could not have been prevented' is, I believe, a personal interpretation of the case that I vehemently disagree with. The case is one of foreseeability and remoteness, not one of determining whether the injury was accidental or deliberate. The case does not establish that the injury was not preventable; rather, that no duty of care arises in the first place. Accordingly, this article represents one person's view of the case; while he acted in good faith in putting this article here, we should be citing from law journals, etc, rather than putting our own opinions up. Richard Cavell (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Being unsourced is not a reason to delete. Deletion is a last resort for articles that cannot be fixed. Case is notable (see Oughton, Marston & Harvey Q&A: The Law of Torts 2007-2008 ISBN 019929948X p97; van Gerven, Larouche, Lever Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law ISBN 1-84113-139-3; Brooman, Legge The Law Relating to Animals ISBN 1859412386 p263). JulesH (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apparently an important case in tort law in the UK.  If the article is badly written, this can be fixed by editing it, and perhaps someone with handier access to UK legal materials than I do can have a go at it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly valid legal stub that needs fixing. Move to Muir v Glasgow Corporation though. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator only gives reasons for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2008 (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.