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.
I was looking at some old diffs in my contribution history for another purpose and saw this article. It is a little complicated so bear with me. It was created under the name Driver hearing in 2006. In September 2015 it was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driver hearing) with the discussion closing as redirect/move to State v. Driver and refactor/rewrite. An afd merge template was put on it[1], which is how it came to my attention in April 2016 (I was working through the backlog). Anyway I tried my best to follow the close, by moving it to this article and essentially rewriting it.[2] The trouble was that I could find very little in the way of secondary sources and decided that the article was probably not notable. I brought it up on the talk page (Talk:State v. Driver#Afd result) where one editor (TJRC) had already said they would fix it. They reiterated what they wanted to do, which even rereading now I don't completely follow. Anyway it has been another year and the article has barely changed. It should be noted for anyone looking for sources that there is another State vs Driver case that is much more notable.[3]AIRcorn(talk)08:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the precedent this case set is worth keeping, even if another renaming is needed. I'm open to suggestions there.I would ignore that other editor that said they'd fix it, but just because they didn't doesn't mean this article can't be salvaged in some form or fashion. South Nashua (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It need to be improved, but it seems like the case may have set an important legal precedence in the state of New Jersey.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary hearing and Law of New Jersey are too broad of a topic to cite this here, that's why I feel it's better to keep the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to put a sentence or two with a see also template, that's okay. But I don't think a redirect is appropriate. This article is strong enough to stand on its own, it just needs some TLC. South Nashua (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would still go with Keep, for pretty much the reasons on Talk:State v. Driver. I confess to being a little ashamed that I did not follow through and clean up as I had said; it pretty much fell off my radar screen. But, I think it's still a notable case and should be kept.
The other case you found (which is apparently State v. Driver, 88 W. Va. 479, 107 S. E. 189 (1921)) doesn't seem all that notable, but if it is, there would be no reason for it not to have its own article, and a disambiguation between them. The West Virginia case seems to be an early case on expert testimony, and I don't think it's gotten much treatment in the legal literature. I can't find the case itself, and the short references I find to it don't describe it in much detail.
I'd be happy to clarify my comments on the talk page. In a nutshell, I find the case to be notable because it has been covered in legal literature and made a lasting change to state legal procedure (which is why it gets coverage). My comments in the talk page were to indicate that it is the NJ Supreme Court case that is notable; not the crime itself, or Mr. Driver's trial, both of which seem pretty WP:ROTM. TJRC (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to (or at least name) these sources as I have looked and not found much in mainstream literature? As to the other case I would suggest it is more notable because most of my google and other searches turned up information about it as opposed this one. It is the first published court case in which a psychologist expert witness' testimony was heard, which has implications for the insanity defense. This case led to a change in precedent in one US state. Would you be amenable to userfying it so you can work on it on your own time and it doesn't spend another two years in limbo? AIRcorn(talk)14:42, 23 December 2017 (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.