Talk:State v. Driver

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 13 December 2017, see discussion.
redirect/move to State v. Driver and refactor/rewrite, 15 August 2015‎, see discussion.

This page was proposed for deletion by Vrac (talk · contribs) on 22 January 2015 with the comment:
No coverage in WP:RS about this term, just one blog entry. Other instances are the term being used. Fails WP:NEO.
It was contested by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) on 14:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC) with the comment:[reply]
Declining deletion proposal, and adding a reference.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Incoming links[edit]

this is a very nuanced, narrow part of the law and it is to be expected that few, if any, articles will link to it right away. It already links out (is wikified in part) and I expect the reverse will happen soon too. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bundas (talk • contribs) 04:20, 6 December 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

AFD result[edit]

I'll see about changing this into a Driver v. State article next week per the AFD closure. I unfortunately will have no time to look at it this week. TJRC (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay moved it and tried to restructure it. I can not find any secondary sources for this case, which makes it difficult to write. If anyone can help with this I would appreciate it, because I am not sure this is notable. The best I have so far is this, which I can't access. Also it is complicated by there being a much more notable Driver v. State case in 1921.[1] AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrac: @Postdlf: @TJRC: AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to AFD because I didn't think it was notable either; I can't offer any help in saving it because I couldn't find any decent sources (perhaps because there aren't any?) but I would vote delete again if you want to nominate it for deletion. Vrac (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I might wait a bit to see if the others reply before doing anything. I am tossing up whether to simply turn this into the 1921 case instead. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; this guy totally slipped my mind; I never got back to it since September. I think the notability in this case is solely its holding that led to the Driver hearing. I would not be very inclined to go to newspaper accounts of the underlying crime for example. The crime itself and any court proceedings other than the New Jersey Supreme Court decision aren't really notable. I can still take a stab at it, but I'd probably limit it to:

short summary of what led to the NJSC case;
short summary of all the issues decided by the case, zeroing in on the sound recording admissibility portion, which is what changed NJ criminal law;
detail on that holding;
description of the Driver hearing process now in effect as a result of the case.

That would result in a lot of material being cut from the article, material that I can tell took some time to develop and to locate support for. Any problem with that? TJRC (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2016 (UTCt

That almost sound like the Driver hearing should be the title, which would just lead us around in circles. I feel it needs some mention in newspaper or other secondary sources to meet WP:gng, although I am not sure if there are specific notability guidelines for trials. I will let you have a go at it. The Pittsburgh Courier has some info if you can be bothered deciphering it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the hearing is not notable, nor is the crime, nor the trial.

The requirement for a hearing is the result of the case. The closest analog I can think of is the AFD on "Giglio material". Giglio material itself is not a notable topic. But the case that created the basis for Giglio material is. When that article was proposed for AFD, it looked like this. After it was repaired and turned into an article on the case, it looked like this. The case, not the material, is what's notable. Similarly, here, the case, not the hearing, is what's notable.

Don't conflate the case with the crime though, nor with the trial. Three different things. The Driver crime is a run-of-the-mill homicide. Not notable. The trial is a run-of-the-mill trial. Not notable. It's the New Jersey Supreme Court case that is notable: it established standards for authentication of sound recording evidence and established the need for a hearing (the Driver hearing) to assess whether the standards are met.

Sometimes, the crime, the trial, and the appellate case are all notable; for example, the murder of Marilyn Sheppard. Even if that case had never gone to the Supreme Court, it was the "crime of the century" until O.J. Simpson came along; so there is an article on the crime itself and the resulting trial(s): Sam Sheppard. And because the appellate case is notable, there's an article on that, too: Sheppard v. Maxwell. But Sheppard v. Maxwell would have been notable even if the underlying crime and trial was not. That's the case here.

That's why I'm saying not to spend time researching the crime, and the trial., They're not notable, or worthy of discussion except as background to the case. TJRC (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]