Deletion of Albert Laszlo Haines

Comment: Clear violation of . ''Maybe'' it could be an article on Albert Laszlo Haines vs Mental Health Review Tribunal, better still a couple of paragraphs in an article on mental health law in the United Kingdom. Newspaper sources are fine, but using the transcript of the tribunal as a source, as this article seems to do, would count as original research, would it not
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The ''legal precedent'' is probably worth discussion in our Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales) article - but the individual concerned appears not to notable by Wikipedia standards. I can see no justification for having a biography on an individual based solely on a single legal ruling, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: It's quite clear that this person is not notable, according to .  We also have had a long-standing |informal practice at AfD to err on the side of caution for children and incapacitated persons.  On the other hand, the case could be notable.  A precedent could be notable solely for its effect on legal history.  The ongoing |consensus here is that precedents, even if only remotely followed or limited to extreme cases today, can be notable, see, ''e.g.'', ''Sherwood v. Walker'', ''Meinhard v. Salmon'', Rights of Englishmen.   How do cases or rules of law become notable?  We don't have a strict checklist (''cf.'' , ), but some factors do count, such as
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:CCC||WP:MUSICBIO||WP:PROF)