Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macdaniel affair

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 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macdaniel affair

Extremely obscure (at best) incident. Only two hits on Google UK, and the citation in the article in fact refers to a footnote in a translated report. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Actual details such as time, year or details are not forthcoming nor evident in the cited footnote. RGTraynor 07:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see the issue passing the notability test, it just can't be reliably sourced. It seems an old case, the source listed (PDF of a paper/book) just has the incident cites with a reference to an english law historical volume. The fact that this cite mentions the persons were stoned to death by a mob suggest this might be quite old. The lack of mentioning on the web suggests it wasn't notable enough. I can't see getting anymore information at this point, especially to warrant its own article. My vote is a deletion. Rasadam (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 5 seconds worth of Google books searching: [1], [2]. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Everyme's references, and consider whether there is a better title.DGG (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two previous have summed it up well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident helped lead to some fundamental changes in criminal justice. However, should we move it to Stephen MacDaniel? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer the current title ~~(maybe adjust capitalisation to MacDaniel affair)~~, since the sources and thus notable lemma is about the affair, not MacDaniel himself. Everyme 18:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and keep the title, which is historically accurate. This is a basic turning point in the history of criminal justice (at least in the West). --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 6 July 2008 (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.