Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It is completely unnecessary to have separate article for every article of the European Convention on Human Rights. It cannot be justified on either notability or size grounds. This one is particularly bad as Article 1 isn't a substantive provision. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per AJB. DeleteFair enough, Article one doesn't give any substantive rights (and there is nothing really which needs to be said or has been said about it), but I disagree about many of the others which all have a substantial amount of associated case law and discourse (for starters, pretty much every undergraduate textbook on human rights law in Europe has a chapter devoted to each). The Article articles need (a lot of) TLC yes, but they certainly meet GNG. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It is entirely justifiable to have an article on every article of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its certainly justifiable on notability grounds, because the interpretation, study and is a serious academic subject within the law. Article 1 is admittedly one of the less significant provisions, but it is a topic of legal interest because its scope and effect has been challenged numerous times and because it defines the jurisdiction and territorial effects of the court/treaty, any introductory textbook to the convention would include a section on those cases that have raised Article 1 issues, and we should do likewise. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you list any case law that discusses article one? I'm not really aware of any but if your right then there could be an article here. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a case list of cases that discuss article 1 to the article, I'll try to write summaries of them later tonight. In the mean time its pretty easy to find significant academic discussion of Article 1 using google books / scholar - e.g here, here,Ajbpearce (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow okay, Mowbray devotes twice as much space to Article 1 as he does to 4 and we have a handful of cases discussing jurisdiction. I think I might be convinced, although I deserve a trout for having been silly enough to think that a provision involving the word 'jurisdiction' would slip by without mention. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment My main objection over this article is that of duplication. There's plenty of space at the Convention article to cover what this article discusses and having it as a separate article makes updating Wikipedia unnecessarily tiresome. Were there to be space concerns in the future the article could always be re-created. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:53, 19 June 2011 (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.