Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex parte Van Heerden


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ex parte Van Heerden

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up results for Wikipedia and it's mirrors, and no secondary sources. Another more recent case seems far more notable. Mako001 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The only source cited is the legal decision itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Concern. In the past 3 days, the nominator has brought more than 50 articles started by User:Robertson-Glasgow either to AfD or through proposed deletion, and is, essentially, systematically destroying their whole corpus.  It's certainly possible that all the articles are problematic, and it's certainly possible that the user has left Wikipedia; but I'm concerned that all these nominations risk overwhelming Robertson-Glasgow's capacity to respond, and indeed, overwhelming our deletion processes as well.  I can't imagine that all these articles will get thorough AfDs from people capable of reading the sources in Afrikaans.  When there's such a large number of cases, I wonder if there shouldn't be a different/better way to handle them?—S Marshall T/C 18:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I found some sources discussing a case of the same name related to COVID-19 lockdown but only this source that briefly discusses the 1923 case. That said, there might be coverage in non-digitized print sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. In response to S Marshall's concerns - these articles have glaring problems, and WP:REFUND should be allowed if someone will do that work.  Also: a lot of these read like copyvios, it seems that they are very liberally quoting from the court decisions. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 23:09, 3 December 2021 (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.