Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HM Advocate v Ross

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HM Advocate v Ross

Non-notable. No reliable sources in Google, no real sources. Lay Lady Lay (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I realize that, if there are no real sources, that this may be a moot point for this particular case, but what are the normal standards for notability in case law? Can someone point me to the page with the guideline? Un school 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guideline specific to case law, so we fall back on the general guideline, WP:N. JulesH (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This case is regularly cited as an important case in Scots criminal law (although it is more regularly referred to as "Ross v HM Advocate", as the important decision was at an appeal not the original case). The case is described in most books on the subject, including Christie Introduction to Scots Criminal Law Pearson 2003, McManus & Thompson Mental Health and Scots Law in Practice Sweet & Maxwell 2005, Dingwall Alcohol and Crime Willan 2006. There are no end of references to this case, and I'm surprised that any real investigation into it didn't turn them up. JulesH (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm loathe to delete good case law articles, especially cases which sent an important precedent within a particular jurisdiction. Having said that, this article does need to be improved and expanded, and should have an external link to the text of the decision, if possible. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 19:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it would be nice to have some sources to support the interpretation given of the precedent set and its notability. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A quick Google Books search shows this case to be referenced in numerous textbooks on Scottish/English criminal law. bd2412 T 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is clear from the face of the article: This case set a key precedent in Scots law for automatism... If it set a key precedent, it's notable. If there is an issue with reliable sources, that's a matter for editing or a challenge for sources, not a deletion. TJRC (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.