Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicular homicide (Oregon)

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. The comments by Location and especially Stifle are persuasive. This is a coatrack as it stands. Even if it weren't, I'm unsure how the subject could maintain a stand-alone article. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular homicide (Oregon)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a Coatrack / Soapbox article. Even if it weren't, I don't believe it's a notable subject. Dogweather (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One person appears responsible for all 6~ articles titled like this. Under current guidelines statutes would constitute primary sources (which can be used to illustrate the existence of something), every single state law textbook (they do exist for all 50 states) and every single case that cites the statutes would constitute secondary sources, so it would meet WP:V no matter how spammy it might seem.--Savonneux (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment though WP:NOTREPOSITORY.--Savonneux (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not an article I'd be interested in personally, as I don't frequent Oregon, but I can't see much wrong with it as it stands. There was soapboxing, possibly, but a nice bit of surgery has been performed. Notability is a difficult one. The Front Drive Sale run by Timmy and Laura raising money for Cats Protection in Little Sniggering is an obvious case. Are laws notable? Railway stations are. Professional footballers in Monaco appear to be. Rappers think they are. Possible an overall article about Vehicular homicide in the USA could include the variations from the basic law found in the different states, and save space while also providing a chance to compare. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sounds notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but mark as a stub. Potentially useful information, significant topic, bad writing — needs work but valid. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally I think the individual state articles should be merged into a single list, but the topic is notable and easily verifiable. Steven Walling 21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. The article is entirely original research but that can be fixed.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verifiable and encyclopedic are two different things. Rehashing state statutes in prose is still a violation of WP:WWIN/WP:NOTREPOSITORY. If there is any information about Oregon's law that is particularly notable (taking into account WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSEVENT), then it can be merged with Vehicular homicide. Laws are notable, but writing up every Oregon statute, or those for the other 49 states, or those for the 10 Canadian provinces, etc, etc. is a bit much. What am I missing here? Location (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was thinking in terms of individual state application, AFAIK no state has adopted the entire Uniform_Vehicle_Code, Canada might be different? No idea. I'm not a fan of having every reasonably similar statute having its own article but was trying to stay away from WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Savonneux (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic may or may not be notable, but the article currently at the topic is coatrackish and it would be better to rebuild from the ground up. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of laws. "Vehicular homicide", as a concept, is adequately discussed in the main article, and there's no need for an article on each state's legal implementation of that concept. Powers ^T 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Powers. E2eamon (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the statement made by Mkativerata. Rohedin ^TALK 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If only to avoid a precedent that the laws of every state, county, and village can be discussed, section by section. If there's something particularly interesting about Oregon's laws, they can be fitted into the main vehicular homicide article; the only trace of that I can find is the claim that their first-time penalties are unusually harsh, which doesn't strike me as worthy of note. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep based on other stuff. I do not understand why this stub is discussed separately from its peers. Indeed, all of them can be merged into something like Gun laws in the United States (by state) (warning: 236 KB!) but this should be a summary decision not a Cartman-style trick. East of Borschov (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this as compelling, as there is a lot of notable commentary on the differences in gun laws among states, and no particular discussion of the same about vehicular homicide. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These types of murder/death statutes are notable because they tend to spawn substantial litigation and are discussed significantly in legal scholarly sources. The article clearly needs lots of work, but that's no grounds for deletion.--Pink Bull 23:08, 3 June 2010 (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.