Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law: Difference between revisions

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	Law Project‑class
This page 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Hello, people of WikiProject Law. I've created this message to notify active members of the project. I need help improving my article about the Clyde cancer cluster, an incident that Whirlpool was sued for in two court cases (even though the article doesn't yet talk about the second court case, see the end of this message for the link to more explanation of this). It is definitely not a bad article. It just needs some small improvements. I'm not at all saying minor edits or improvements are bad, but I'm specifically looking for people who can help me long-term with a lot of co-research to improve the article to reach Good Article status. If you're interested in helping, the things needed to be improved are listed on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster#Improvements. In other words, more material needs to be added to improve the article, and I want more people to edit because I feel like I'm the sole editor. Regards, Philmonte101 (talk)

For those interested: This topic is currently covered in International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking which is now outdated. The bill was recently signed by the president[1] and goes by the name HR 515 International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders.[2] The page should be moved under a new name and the infobox updated.

The world's (temporarily?) best-known/most-notorious law firm, Mossack Fonseca, has had a lot of work done on it over the past few days, and yesterday had 100K+ page views. Would be curious to hear any feedback from this group. —Luis (talk)

@LuisVilla: Just an observation: Page views for the last 90 days average 384 views per day. Any connection to wp:Not News? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech: interesting question. For comparison, that's on par or better than the top five global firms by revenue. —Luis (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, amusingly, if you back out a bit more, they're the only firm that got a huge bounce... the day after taxes. Will be interesting to see if the same thing happens in April.) —Luis (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new task to the todo list diff, in the form of a list of 1520 women in law for which we have no biography. The list is generated from wikidata, and will update itself on a daily basis. It is part of the Women in Red initiative which seeks to remedy the distressing imbalance between biographies of men and women on wikipedia, where the current ratio is about 86/16. I hope members of this project will lend support to the initiative by adding biographies of women in law. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in other news, I really don't understand either of the other two entries on the To Do list; someone who does might want to amend them ... I think the ideal is to compose a ToDo list as a series of verb statements telling users what needs doing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: Many thanks for creating this list! Just out of curiosity, is there a way to keep track of articles that are created from this list? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very good way, sadly, Notecardforfree. I'm tracking another list, ODNB women, and I tend just to look at the history and diffs to find out what's been going on ... to that end, I've removed the first column of this table, as an index number tends to make diffs very long (i.e. remove a row: all index numbers below that row change). To date, it looks as if there'd been one removal (i.e. article created) and one addition (i.e. a new wikidata item with no wikipedia article). I suspect that Petscan or the Wikidata query interface might be used to provide progress reports, but I'm not clever enough to get either to do so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: Thanks for posting. Just out of curiosity: who determined that these women are Notable? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

That determination has not yet been made for en.wiki, @Ottawahitech:. They represent all women who have records in wikidata with a 'legal' occuption property and no en.wiki article. There is a presumption that many will be notable, either because another language wikipedia has an article (which is indicative of, but not an imprimatur of, notability) or because someone has gone to the effort of sourcing them for wikidata. We can suppose that very many different people added wikidata records for many different reasons. Editors here still need to make a person by person determination. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

For example at R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, the infobox abbreviates the case name using "SS". Is this a commonly accepted abbreviation, specifically in the UK context? To a layman, "SS" means either "steam ship" or "Schutzstaffel". I don't think space is really so tight in infoboxes that we have to imply such bizarre connections. Hairy Dude (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings WikiProject Law Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, states have laws concerning "Deadly weapons". In the UK and Commonwealth nations, they have similar laws about "Offensive weapons". As far as I can tell, they cover almost exactly the same ground, though the precise limits vary. I think they should be merged. But which should I propose as the merge target? Is there a protocol or custom for which country's legal terms have priority? Felsic2 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Leopheard:, because he created Offensive weapon and @Wnt:, because he contributed to Deadly weapon. Felsic2 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim any deep understanding of the topic - I just added a news article about someone throwing an alligator through a fast food delivery window because it was funny! But FWIW my opinion is that the two concepts should not be merged unless and until you come up with some source that says that they have some common derivation - otherwise they are just coincidental. I mean, the laws on deadly weapons vary widely and don't make a whole lot of sense, and from a quick look I'm thinking the same about offensive weapons, and so there's no obvious reason to think they will align more than by chance. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of merging; the subject matter is much the same; neither of the articles is very good right now. I'd be tempted to entitle the article Prohibited weapons and direct deadly, dangerous and offensive at Pw ... Pw is a generic sort of a term throughout much of many country's legislation. There's a very good article to be had with a bit of effort. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a valid synonym for either? By and large, clubs, screwdrivers and alligators aren't prohibited. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Your examples are prohibited weapons. They are not, for instance, prohibited tools, prohibited zoo specimins, etc. You can make exactly the same argument about deadly weapons as you have about prohibited weapons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm just here to ask about a suitable target - I'll start a proper merge discussion once one is decided upon.

I see Wnt's point about "prohibited weapon" - it's somewhat different from offensive/deadly weapon since it does not include ad hoc weapons that are included in the other terms. Prohibited weapons are perhaps more like "per se" offensive/deadly weapons - those that have ben designated in the statute. Felsic2 (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? It's not obvious to me they are prohibited. They are weapons that one may have, by and large, without consequence, in related contexts, with exceptions. They only are prohibited in certain situations, as defined elsewhere, outside the definition of deadly weapons. "Prohibited" misleads. (Felsic2 says it better than me above.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anybody express a preference between US and UK terms for what may be the same legal concept. I guess I could pick one then make that part of the merge discussion. Thanks for the input. I'll ping you guys when I start it. Felsic2 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide comment at Talk:Polygyny#Map of polygyny w.r.t. Russia. (This project is being pinged because the topic-in-question is listed as a topic under this WikiProject's umbrella.) --Izno (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article titled State of Vermont v. State of New Hampshire, about a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1933. It is stubby as it stands and so far I haven't yet created any links to it from other articles. It does not yet make clear why there was a lawsuit in the first place. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The decision makes reference to some attempts in the first two decades of the 20th century of New Hampshire towns to tax land and structures on the west bank of the Connecticut river. This would be around the same time that hydroelectric plants were built along the river (that is, around the same time there was something worth taxing). Perhaps that is what lead to the lawsuit. If Vermont's contention that Vermont's territory extended to the thread of the river had prevailed, they could have taxed about 1/2 of the dams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs)

One oddity about this case is that SCOTUS cited an act of Vermont's legislature passed in 1782, when Vermont was an unrecognized entity effectively in rebellion against New York, when the governor of New York was contemplating military force to overthrow Vermont's government. The degree and nature of retroactive recognition of acts of the entity that called itself the State of Vermont during its 14 years of unrecognized de-facto rule seems like an interesting question and I wonder to what extent it's been answered. When Vermont was admitted to the Union on March 4, 1791, its governor who had been sworn in in October 1790 before Vermont petitioned for admission to the Union simply continued his term of office, as did other officers of the state, and the 1786 Constitution of Vermont continued in force unaltered. Does that in itself imply a sort of retroactive full-faith-and-credit? The act of Congress admitting Vermont to the Union said that the entity that had petitioned the Congress for admission was "the State of Vermont". Might that imply some sort of retroactive recognition? Even though Kentucky was not admitted to the Union until well over a year after Vermont's admission, the act admitting Kentucky was passed two weeks before the act admitting Vermont, and it began by explicitly noting that the legislature of Virginia had consented to Kentucky's becoming a separate state. Negotiations in 1790 had resulted in New York's legislature consenting to what they still claimed was a part of New York becoming a separate state, and called it “the community now actually exercising independent jurisdiction, as ‘the State of Vermont’.” But the act of Congress admitting Vermont did not mention that act of New York's legislature.

It seems as if Congress was deliberately avoiding explicitly saying anything about things that people disagreed about.
And notice the title page of this book, saying it was printed in 1784 in the "State of Vermont" seven years before Vermont was admitted to the Union. That doesn't imply recognition from anyone outside of Vermont, but recently I was taken to task for thinking anything called "the State of Vermont" could have existed before 1791. That seems to be another instance of the error of thinking about history by means of concepts that didn't yet exist during the time you're talking about.

So what degree of retroactivity does the full faith and credit granted to Vermont have? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy, a partial answer regarding Vermont's status may be found in footnote 13 in this 2004 article from the American Journal of Legal History. See also the equal footing doctrine. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: I don't see how the equal-footing doctrine addresses any questions of retroactivity. Might it be that the fact that Vermont law still considers acts of the state of Vermont before March 4, 1791 to be valid logically entails retroactivity? But is there anything explicit on the question of retroactivity? The footnote says "A compromise required the consent of a state for any future separation of a new state 'hereafter formed.' This exempted Vermont, which was already considered to be 'formed.' " But the words "hereafter formed" do not appear in the Constitution. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy, the questions presented in your previous comments involve rather complex issues of constitutional law. I apologize for the brevity of my previous response and for any confusion it may have caused. Here are a few points that I hope will clarify things:

• States are sovereign (or quasi-sovereign) political entities. (See Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416, 431 (1920)). Although its territory may have been claimed by other states, the Supreme Court recognized that the political entity known as "Vermont" existed before 1791, when it was formally admitted as a member of the union. (Vermont v. New Hampshire 289 U.S. 593, 596 (1933) ("Vermont was admitted to the Union as a sovereign independent state")). In other words, the Vermont that existed in 1782 was the same Vermont that existed in 1791, and it is the same Vermont that exists now. That's why the Supreme Court, in Vermont v. New Hampshire, looked at how Vermont defined its own boundaries in its 1782 legislation. I should note that Vermont's situation is not unique: other states existed as independent nations and others established "de facto" or "extra-legal" local governments before joining the union. (See this law review article at p. 319 for more examples).
• I'm certainly not an expert in Vermont's history, but I presume that they kept the laws of the old Republic when they joined the Union in 1791. As a general principle, when new states join the Union, they can utilize whatever laws they like, as long as there are no conflicts with federal law. (See Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567 (1911) (holding that new states are "competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself."); note also that Congress has often imposed conditions on admission to the Union). To that extent, Vermont could give legal effect to laws that were passed by its legislature before 1791. (See State v. Elliot (1991), a Vermont Supreme Court decision that discussed the "continuum" between the pre-1791 and post-1791 Vermont).
• As for your question about full faith and credit: To the extent that Vermont kept any pre-1791 laws, upon admission to the Union, other states would then have to give those laws full faith and credit. As for any pre-1791 laws that were repealed before statehood, I think the question of full faith and credit would be moot. However, see this famous law review article about problems with giving full faith and credit to statutes and this more recent law review article, which explores a trend where the "Supreme Court has become far more willing to permit courts to ignore sister-state statutes" (at pp. 51-61). See also this article about the history and development of the full faith and credit clause.
• I cited the equal footing doctrine because it presumes that states have equal status in the Union -- in other words, the federal government cannot limit the sovereignty of new states. (See Coyle, 221 U.S. at 566). Under this principle, Vermont had the same rights to manage its affairs (legislatively) as the other states.

I hope this is helpful. I would love to dive into these questions in further depth, but unfortunately it's a busy week for me. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: Thank you. The "continuum" question is to me the most interesting part. Vermont's 1777 Constitution was superseded by its 1786 Constitution, which continued in effect when Vermont was admitted to the Union. And Thomas Chittenden was sworn in to a one-year term as governor of the state of Vermont in October 1790, succeeding Moses Robinson, and that term simply continued when the state was admitted: no new government or new constitution or new laws came into effect at that time. (I think Wikipedia's list of governors of Vermont confuses matters here, by thinking about this in terms of concepts that developed later. It gives the impression that Chittenden's term from October 1790 to the date of admission was distinct from his term from the date of admission to October 1791.) It's also interesting that a federal court was examining the validity of the Wentworth grants as recently as 1991. What amount of "faith and credit" those should get has been contentious at least since 1764. (Benning Wentworth is the man who named the town of Bennington after himself.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, a peer review has been requested for the Legalism (Chinese philosophy) article. Interested parties are invited to take part at the review page, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Legalism (Chinese philosophy)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My list of missing topics about law is updated - Skysmith (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skysmith: Just curious: why is this in your user space and not part of this wikiproject? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

As far as I remember, it was linked by category, but then one of the members removed it (thought now the category is back). So apparently it was not wanted - Skysmith (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Stan v. Marcel Prodan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Is someone gaming the system? How can this article possibly be a GA-rated article of WikiProject Law?:

• It does not belong to any law-related categories
• It start off like this: Alexandra Stan v. Marcel Prodan stands for a series of events that occurred as a result of an alleged violent incident...

WARNING I usually live in the wiki-slums of Stubs and Starts and know very little about the upper classes at GA . Ottawahitech (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Ottawahitech, this was actually nominated for GA under the Music topic, but the GA reviewer was the one to add the Law WikiProject to the article's talk page as part of approving it as a GA with this edit, and to categorize it under the Law topic rather than the Music topic. I don't think the nominator is gaming the system, though I think the reviewer made a heck of a mistake approving it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I just created Category:Regulation by regulated region - what do you think of it? I got a few questions regarding that category:

1. Should it be moved over to Category:Regulations by regulated region (plural but more specified to specific regulations opposed to regulation in general)?
2. Where to draw the line between article that belong to that category (it subcategories) and those that instead belong into other categories of law? And does it make sense to have that category when there already are categories for law by regions? If not would it be enough to modify this category / specify it better? Note: it was mainly intended for regulations of technologies for which the term or category "regulation" is way more appropriate than simply "law".

Also could you please help with that category? I won't populate it much - most if its entries are intended to be examples of what should probably belong into the category.

--Fixuture (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have posted another edit request on the Talk page for Marsy's Law. I'm asking for a couple small updates to the article that show there are now Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. I have a financial conflict of interest (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) so I am aware I should not edit the article. Can someone look at my request and add this new detail to the article? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board appears to violate copyright. I didn't want to go so far to have the page blanked by using {{subst:copyvio}} and to file a formal objection, but I'm still considering and welcome someone else to do so if necessary.

It looks to me like the text for the Holding portion (and likely some of the rest of it) was lifted from WestLaw. My guess is the editor probably didn't realize that copying from WestLaw would be a problem.

This also bring a question. Are citations like this acceptable in our law articles?

The President could not “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” within meaning of Article II if he could not oversee faithfulness of officers who executed them. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 1, cl. 1

I don't have access to WestLaw (and neither will most readers), so I believe that using a WestLaw (or LexisNexis) citation should be avoided. However, U.S.C.A. or U.S.C.S. could be found in a law library. So I am not sure if it generally acceptable or not.

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI for those interested, further discussion on this topic is ongoing at WT:SCOTUS. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on Talk:Child marriage#Recent changes and Talk:Teen marriage#Recent image addition. The first discussion concerns changes made to the article's terminology, the use of images and whether or not to merge the article. And the second discussion concerns whether or not the lead image is appropriate for the article. Permalinks here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I happened to notice these edits by User:Adriennepjones citing several papers by J.A. Roffee in about two dozen articles, mostly related to law and sex or sexuality. I don't know Roffee, but this is not my field. It might be worthwhile to confirm that the references are appropriate and not undue promotion. I also pointed Adriennepjones to guidance at WP:REFSPAM. Cnilep (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I'm wondering if it's worth having an article on IMDb v. Harris (probably IMDb v. Becerra, now), currently taking place in N.D. Cal. I'm putting out a feeler here before undertaking it.

In the aftermath of Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc., where an actress sued IMDb for publishing her true age and lost, California enacted A.B. 1687, making such activity by IMDb illegal in California. IMDb promptly sued that such a law violated its First Amendment rights and in any event was preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The suit has gotten some significant news coverage (see, e.g., [3] (Findlaw); [4], [5] (Courthouse News); [6] (Hollywood Reporter); [7] (Techdirt); [8] (Electronic Frontier Foundation); and [9] (National Law Review), among others); but I'm not entirely certain that it's crossed over the line from WP:NOTNEWS into Wikipedia notability. Any thoughts?

I suppose we can continue to grow the "Reaction and aftermath" section of the Hoang article; but it's also possible to stray into WP:COATRACK territory if a whole lot of detail on the second case is added. It's really a separate case. TJRC (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this professor sufficiently notable in the field of Public Procurement Law (or for any other reason) to keep the article:

• Omer Dekel

Comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Dekel

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the Inspire campaign that Wikimedia is currently running, I've proposed a partnership between Wikimedia and the U.S. Federal Register to help improve content relating to the U.S. Federal Government. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my proposal: Partner with the U.S. Federal Register to help improve U.S. Government content. Thank you. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Discussion going on about deleting this article:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of housing statutes
• List of housing statutes

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Criminal Justice Act 1991 is utterly incomprehensible. I do not mean the incomprehensibility to the layman of an article written by a lawyer for other lawyers, but the incomprehensibility of an article which looks like someone pulled words and phrases out of a hat and called the result an article. It is astonishingly incomprehensible. Please could someone have a bash at turning it into something that makes some kind of sense? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk)

@DuncanHill: it couldn't be saved - so I've just completely cut it. GiantSnowman 15:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing the same, but didn't want to deny others the opportunity of being mind-boggled! DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles like the below list worth saving? I am thinking of submitting a bunch of them to WP:AfD.

• WER v REW
• ZXC v BNM
• ASG v GSA
• CDE & FGH v Mirror Group Newspapers and LMN
• Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd
• ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd
• Goldsmith v BCD
• JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd
• MJN v News Group Newspapers Ltd
• POI v Lina
• DFT v TFD
• TSE and ELP v News Group Newspapers

I got them from List of privacy injunction cases in English law

Some of them like this have plenty of strong WP:RS and should certainly stay if the WP:RS is on-point:

• MNB v News Group Newspapers

If the above are ultimately going to go to WP:AfD, should they still be listed in the table of List of privacy injunction cases in English law? I'm on the fence on that one: I believe the standard for inclusion in the table is much lower than WP:GNG for having a standalone article. (I don't know policy that says that, but it seems like common sense.) However, the WP:RS seems weak enough, I'm not sure we can even justify them in the table. (Pinging @DanielJCooper: who has created some and maintained others.) --David Tornheim (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]