Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Commission v Italian Republic (Case C-565/08)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

European Commission v Italian Republic (Case C-565/08)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Whether this article satisfies WP:GNG is very difficult to determine. The main source is primary, and a search on the case number appears to yield only primary sources. I have asked WikiProject Law for advice, but received none in a week. Although the case is EU vs. Italy, a search of the Italian Wikipedia reveals no article about it there. If this article is to be included, how is Wikipedia not to become a reference work on EU case law? --Stfg (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Support as per nom. This is a judgment which does not establish any new principle or right. Its main relevance appears to be in the context of the specific facts which gave rise to the case regarding the liberalisation of the Italian legal profession. It's also worth noting that no press release was released by the Court of Justice, which it normally does when the case is of some importance or public interest. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - how Juno, I am an attorney and I can't make any sense of this. I think the case might be notable, but the EU does not follow precedent, and the article is such a mess it needs to be started from scratch.  Please convince me otherwise.  Bearian (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any independent sources indicating the importance or notability of this case. I find the lack of independent sources generally as concerning; all sources are simply links to the primary source ruling text. Lord Roem (talk) 17:09, 20 October 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.