Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contostavlos v Mendahun


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Contostavlos v Mendahun

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable event. This stub offers no necessary context beyond what's mentioned in Tulisa Contostavlos (which is the only article that links to it) and has only routine coverage.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 15:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Legal cases only merit articles when they refine points of law, are commonly discussed in law text books, etc. The story is adequately covered in Tulisa Contostavlos. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A few thoughts - 1)The case is a High Court case and so sets a precedent for lower courts to follow.  We have similar High Court privacy related articles Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers, NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) which would surely needed to be deleted if this one were?2) The case sets a precedent with regards to false denials made by claimants in such cases 3) Very few Wikipedia editors write law articles without making the situation worse 4) Due to the lag-time involved in academic publishing  it may take a while for this case to appear in articles and textbooks. Francium12 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would disagree that it sets a precedent on false denials; Tugendhat makes no statement as to decisions made as a result of the false denial, unless we mean the fact that the case continued going ahead despite that - which may or may not be significant precedent, but either way, is not something we are qualified to decide. The question ultimately comes down to nothing more than whether this passes WP:NOT, up until qualified publications argue that it involved some element of precedent or longevity. This may be the case, and I appreciate that (as Francium notes) it may be some while before legal publications catch up with this real world event. But that is something we will correct for when the time comes: we do not keep articles in the hope that they will justify notability in the future, but instead when we can confirm they have passed the notability tests in the past.Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Colapeninsula. "High Court case and so sets a precedent" – not really; only binding on County Courts. It's exceptional as a law student to come across a high court case worthy per se of much discussion; thus the typical case is where there is a profound effect on a particular subject matter or person. In my opinion, therefore, this would be better suited to a mention on the article(s) of the person(s) affected. Although OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at Afd, I'd look to delete NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) and Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers as well. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ironholds above. Lord Roem (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't appear to be a particularly significant or notable court case. I would say 'merge into Tulisa Contostavlos', but there's so little content here there's really nothing to merge - that article contains all the relevant information (she successfully obtained an injunction) already. The bit about the 'Fleet Street Blues' blog is irrelevant and not worth mentioning. Robofish (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As for 'if we delete this article, we'll have to delete Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers and NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) as well' - firstly, one AFD discussion doesn't create precedent for others. Secondly, those cases seem to have received slightly more coverage from the mainstream media than this one did, so have a better claim to notability. Robofish (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't see how this court case is notable. Not significant in legal terms and only gets the coverage it does - and even then only in news media - due to the celebrity of one of the litigants. The broader issue is obviously worth mentioning on her page as part of her biography, but the case itself does very definitely not need a whole article to itself. Not a newspaper etc.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:21, 8 May 2012 (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.