Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicular homicide (Georgia)


 * 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 anything encyclopedic to Vehicular_homicide, and redirect. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Vehicular homicide (Georgia)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per precedent at Articles for deletion/Vehicular homicide (Oregon). Vehicular homicide already exists and Wikipedia is not a repository of laws. I am also nominating the following pages for the same reasons:
 * Location (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Location (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Location (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all on procedural grounds. The articles are too different to be batch-nominated. The Oregon article was deleted primarily because of coat-racking concerns, which don't exist in these articles. These should be nominated individually so we can assess the content and sourcing on an individual basis and not accidentally delete good stuff or keep bad stuff. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I nominated these four articles together because there was enough feedback in the Oregon Afd to suggest that they all meet the same fate. In my opinion, they are all identical in that they simply rehash a state statute in prose. The Oregon article rehashed a state statute in prose and it also had a sentence or two of coat-rack issues. I hate to get into "he says, she says", but it's clear that the closing admin of the Oregon article agreed with the WP:NOTREPOSITORY issue and indicated that coat-rack was only part of the issue. Location (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I don't have a problem with the bundled nomination.  Each article is merely a statement of the individual state law with nothing more.  The existence of these articles add nothing to the main article.  If there were interesting case law associated, perhaps I'd be more inclined to keep.  As it stands, they are in line with WP:NOT.  Movementarian (Talk) 02:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kill one, the whole bunch will go down, right? Cartman must be proud of this AFD! Agree, Delete. These, unlike the Oregon article destroyed earlier, are in such a poor state that wikipedia hardly loses anything. It seems like this AFD takes care of all "vehicular homicides", doesn't it? P.S. I pinged the creator of these articles about the AFD (he appears to be on a wikibreak, last edit June 3). East of Borschov (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all state articles WP is not a directory of laws. The main article on Vehicular homicide is quite interesting and informative. No additional information is added by articles on each state's law. If there is something different that could be mentioned in main article. Wolfview (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge any relevant content to vehicular homicide. No need for separate state articles.  Gwinva (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. US vehicular homicide laws vary from state to state. That's why there's state bar exams and why lawyers can make careers out of specializing in serious charges like this one. Some state-specific angles on vehicular homicide that come to mind - that would, if expanded for every state, overwhelm the US article - include legislative history, judicial history esp. in state higher courts, max/min sentences, parole, feticide, reduced responsibility (fatigue, seizures , etc), failure to use a child restraint, the 3-strikes rule , what the relevant blood alchohol level is. A relevant legal detail in Georgia, mentioned in this book,  is whether charging a driver under 21 with vehicular homicide under the lower legal alchohol blood levels applied to those drivers was valid. The articles don't currently include any state-specific aspects, but they could. (Their creator is apparently taking exams). I believe WP precedents support keeping reasonable starts on inherently notable topics. Novickas (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone doubts that there are differences in state laws, but I think the relevant questions are: "Are the differences in those state laws notable enough for an encyclopedia, and if they are, should they be noted in separate articles or within a section in Vehicular homicide?" Writing separate articles actually makes it more difficult to highlight what is unique about each jurisdiction. Location (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know how similar the state laws actually are. I've tried to point to some major, pretty recent issues about vehicular homicide that are state-specific. But since we know the state laws vary on issues of this magnitude, and that reliable sources describing them along with their detailed legislative and judicial histories must also exist, and the info could be added, I say they deserve separate articles. Novickas (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, because the law in all these states is based on different statutes and cases. (It is important to note that the crime is prosecuted on a state-by-state basis.  They may have nuanced variations.  And even if the principles are EXACTLY the same, it is always important to know which statutes and precedents to cite.) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And a follow-up Comment: As the person who initiated these sub-articles, let me just explain my intention:  I believe that these articles can blossom in the same way that I hope for Freedom of information by state to absorb the content at http://www.rcfp.org/ogg/index.php.  Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I'm sorry I don't have more time to address the arguments and counter-arguments. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all articles. The content in each of the state articles seems to be almost copies (if not actually copies) of the laws themselves. As noted in WP:NOTLINK, Wikipedia is not a place for public domain content that is meaningless outside of its original, unmodified representation. Even if the laws in each state were different enough to the point that a reader would even dream of visiting this article, the articles should at least be Merged, considering one article with all the information would be more useful to the average reader than a bunch of stubs spread across the encyclopedia. (In fact, the very point of stub articles is to act as seeds for future expansion, and I do not foresee these articles going anywhere beyond mere restatements of state laws.) — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 02:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. These types of laws are notable. There are voluminous discussions of these laws in judicial decisions and scholarly articles, both of which are somewhat difficulty to procure in a free on-line format.-- Pink  Bull  04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge all into Vehicular Homicide laws in states of the USA or a similar generic article. The information in these articles is useful and verifiable, but they are short stubs not really worthy of individual articles. A merge would retain the content without leaving stubs behind. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All. The listing of slight differences in fines and prison times for a particular crime in a particular state is unencyclopedic and fails WP:NOT. If the topic of differences in vehicular homicide laws of the 50 states has secondary sources, it may be possible to contruct a single article on the topic. I would prefer to see lay sources with plenty of interpretation and analysis to justify such an article. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * comment: we need articles like this if we're going to build up up articles such as "Law of Georgia" (or California law). Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly do the existence of other articles facilitate the development of another one. These articles are simply copies of laws, which can be looked up very easily. (Not to mention you cannot cite Wikipedia articles so these articles would not help you there). — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Re Georgia, current article does not demonstrate notability of Georgia vehicular homicide law, but there's no need to delete the content.  A merger into Vehicular Homicide laws in states of the USA  or some such would work, and then individually notable states within the breakdown can have linked-to separate articles.--Milowent (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, i checked the other ones, too, they are all similar in terms of sourcing. I recommend we create Vehicular homicide in U.S. state jurisdictions linked to from Vehicular homicide.  Redirect and merge all these articles into that list.  Having a consolidated article will be more useful to the average reader for the current length articles. I'll volunteer to do the work.--Milowent (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to create a separate article. We can just merge directly into Vehicular homocide. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 16:25, 21 June 2010 (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.