- 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. Davewild ( talk) 06:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Civic chandran v ammini amma
- Civic chandran v ammini amma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopaedic and unreferenced. Not sure if it meets notability guidelines either. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. No valid rationale for deletion. Notability is determined by the existence of sources, not their presence in the article. "Unencyclopedic" is a non-argument. It is so vague as to be meaningless and is one of the arguments to avoid (WP:ATA). "I'm not sure if its notable" necessarily amounts to a failure to comply with BEFORE, as you are not supposed to nominate unless you are sure that it is not. The case is notable under GNG and under criteria 2 of WP:CASES, as decisions of the Kerala High Court are binding: [1]. James500 ( talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This reads like a law-school essay (and probably was one), and needs to be reworked to comply with wikipedia's formatting, tone, and sourcing requirements. But the article's subject is notable given that the court ruling is oft cited in context of Indian copyright law and its interpretation of fair dealing. The only reason to delete the current version would be if it is found to be a copyvio, and on a searcch it doesn't appear to be one (at least of sources accessible online). Abecedare ( talk) 17:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note I have moved the page to Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma; broken the article up into sections; added a lede and a few sources. The rest of the article still needs work (which I am hoping the article creator User:SeverusSnape07 can help with), but as I said above notability is not in doubt. Abecedare ( talk) 18:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Davewild ( talk) 06:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Civic chandran v ammini amma
- Civic chandran v ammini amma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopaedic and unreferenced. Not sure if it meets notability guidelines either. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. No valid rationale for deletion. Notability is determined by the existence of sources, not their presence in the article. "Unencyclopedic" is a non-argument. It is so vague as to be meaningless and is one of the arguments to avoid (WP:ATA). "I'm not sure if its notable" necessarily amounts to a failure to comply with BEFORE, as you are not supposed to nominate unless you are sure that it is not. The case is notable under GNG and under criteria 2 of WP:CASES, as decisions of the Kerala High Court are binding: [1]. James500 ( talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This reads like a law-school essay (and probably was one), and needs to be reworked to comply with wikipedia's formatting, tone, and sourcing requirements. But the article's subject is notable given that the court ruling is oft cited in context of Indian copyright law and its interpretation of fair dealing. The only reason to delete the current version would be if it is found to be a copyvio, and on a searcch it doesn't appear to be one (at least of sources accessible online). Abecedare ( talk) 17:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note I have moved the page to Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma; broken the article up into sections; added a lede and a few sources. The rest of the article still needs work (which I am hoping the article creator User:SeverusSnape07 can help with), but as I said above notability is not in doubt. Abecedare ( talk) 18:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.