Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBC v New Brunswick AG


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

CBC v New Brunswick AG

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a court case, which provides no sourcing except the primary source text of the court decision itself and no analysis or context for why Wikipedia would need an article about it. To be honest, this is so devoid of any real substance about the court case, beyond the cursory "this is a thing that happened", that I strongly suspect this was intended less as a real article about a genuinely notable court case, and more as a back door way of getting a criminal named and shamed in Wikipedia without having to take on the high burden of referencing a biographical article about him well enough to satisfy WP:PERP. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * A threshold question is whether every opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada is entitled to an article. We have a longstanding and well-reasoned consensus for that regarding U.S. Supreme Court cases, at least in the modern era where taking cases and issuing opinions is discretionary and fewer are written per year, and they are always well covered enough to satisfy GNG. But I don't know how much of the same reasoning would apply to Canada's high court. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Searching for Re R v Carson brings up a lot of hits 1 2 3 4. Taken together these seem to just scrape it into being notable. On the general question - no, I don't think that the decision of any court (the USSC included) automatically warrants an article absent other evidence of "significant coverage". FOARP (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Case Law notability is tricky (and the last proposal to have a guideline about it failed), but in this case I think the notability has been made out, even though the article should get a rewrite (and references to discussions of the case from law journals added). This is a decision on an important constitutional issue by Canada’s apex court and cited in (according to CanLii) more than 500 cases since. To the comment by User:Postdlf, in Canada the situation is fairly similar to that in America. The Canadian Supreme Court writes fewer and fewer decisions and has very wide discretion on which cases to take. As a result, basically every new SCC decision is subject to a substantial amount of academic discussion in journals, which generally tends to suggest notability. Atchom (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - this case is one of the major cases on the open court principle, balancing the right of a victim to some measure of privacy, against the right of the public, through the media, to be fully informed about court decisions and legal principles. ETA:  with regard to Bearcat's comment, note that the name of the accused is not mentioned in the article, so it if was an attempt to shame the accused, it's not very successful.  ;) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I edited out the name because it the issue at hand was between the CBC and the court, and not really about the defendant. However, insofar as case law often involves otherwise-anonymous people I don't think the "no shaming" rationale works very well. Atchom (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2018 (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.