Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas v Hello!


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Douglas v Hello!

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no evidence of the notability of these cases or this article. Chidel (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am currently writing Privacy in English law. I will establish notability but need a few days to write an article. It is 23:50 in the UK and I am going to bed now! Francium12 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what your sandbox is for. Chidel (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tentative delete/merge I am unsure of whether this case meets the notability guidelines set forth at WP:N. I am unfamiliar with British law, so at first glance this case seems like little more than an article that was only created because the plaintiffs were celebrities. However, if the case did in fact set an important precedent in British privacy law, then notability might indeed be present. The fact of the matter is that the article as it is does not demonstrate the notability of its subject. If it is a work in progress, I would suggest that you tag it with Template:UnderConstruction. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I now revise my opinion to Keep, as the article has been expanded extensively in the last 24 hours. As a case before England's highest court that is important to the subject matter of Privacy in English law (but not exclusively to that subject) I think notability is present. The error that ought to be reprimanded here is not the creation of an article on this subject but the creation of said article as a stub that failed to establish notability and did not include the Under Construction template. Anyway, userfying is obviously no longer necessary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this qualifies for a stand-alone article outside of Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, or Hello! so you might be better off putting the information in one of those articles (if it's not there already). I might change my mind if it's shows to be a landmark case. As it stands, I suggest Userfy so that author has time to get the information into an appropriate format for Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. House of Lords referral sways me. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The creator has just expanded the article considerably, including the fact it went all the way to the House of Lords, the highest court in England, which I think means it does set an important precedent (though IANAL). It certainly got plenty of coverage in the media at the time. If it were merged, it's not obvious whether to merge to Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hello!, OK! or Privacy in English law, so it's seems simpler to have a stand-alone article to which they each can link if their editors wish. Agree it was unhelpful to create such a minimal stub in article space initially. Qwfp (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wouldn't call these landmark cases but they are very notable for several reasons
 * The celebrity factor and the money awarded made headlines - seven figure sums were awarded.
 * In legal terms they tell us a lot about how breach of confidence appears to be creating something akin to a right of privacy, how courts interpret free expression v privacy.
 * There was so much litigation and cross litigation that the is a wealth of academic comment attempting to make sense of it all! Francium12 (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. House of Lords ruling on the case is sufficient to prove notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the article has been expanded. Like Kaye v. Robertson, the original stub of this article was inadequate: in future it would be helpful to develop material like this offline or in a sandbox.  Pointillist (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (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.