Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperfect self-defense

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 - Peripitus (Talk) 08:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect self-defense

This article about a legal "doctrine" is flawed at best, as the court opinions cited are incorrect. They both point to the same case, in which the defense did not work (i.e., the murder conviction was affirmed). I think ~~it's a bogus soapbox article, as the appeal was based on ineffective assistence of counsel. If such a doctrine has any merit,~~ it should be included in Self-defense (theory). If I remember my crim-law classes correctly, an "unreasonable" belief does not justify deadly force in Texas. Evb-wiki (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for things made up in the defense attorney's restroom one day. (ba-dump-bump!)--WaltCip (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zeta.--WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Notability not established, and written poorly in non-enclyclopedic manner. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with heavy editing. It's listed in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, and a Google Books search shows that it's described in the textbook "Criminal Law". The Michigan standard jury instructions mention it as well. ("Imperfect self-defense is a qualified defense that can mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.") The current description appears to be incorrect, but this is a real legal topic. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is most certainly real, and any search on Google or skimming of a criminal law textbook will reveal it was not made up in a day. Tag for rescue, etc. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Absolutely real; I found hundreds of mentions using this exact term in case law and legal review in LexisNexis. I am not enough of an expert to write about it contextually, but I added an example with citation to the article. — brighterorange (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On page one of Google results [1], I found cites from three states. More to come. Happy Holidays! Bearian (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a well refernced article. Fosnez (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Law has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (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.