Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaye v. Robertson


 * 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) 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaye v. Robertson

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

This case is already covered adequately in the Wikipedia articles about Privacy in English law and English defamation law. Aside from that, this article grossly overstates its notability. Chidel (talk) 22:51, 29 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)
 * Question SCOTUS cases are considered notable (to the extent that some argue that SCOTUS denials are also notable), so why doesn't a case in front of the highest court (at point in time) of England and Wales have the same notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceman7Spiff (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it the highest court at the time? From what I can tell, it was decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales - the article doesn't mention they were a highest court. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Outside of Judicial functions of the House of Lords it is, currently, until the new Supreme Court takes over the role of highest court. The Court of Appeal is the highest body within the Supreme Court of England and Wales. It's a bit confusing, and therefore my question. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google search turns up hits across two continents for this case. It looks like there's plenty of material out there to demonstrate the notability of this article. I think the correct course right now is to expand the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Strong Keep IMHO, its difficult to overstate its notability. This is a landmark case, still essential to any comprehension of the current law and still occasioning much debate and applicational angst. How about tagging for rescue and getting the law project bods on to it? Plutonium27 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to wonder if this may be somewhat of a WP:POINT nom...? Plutonium27 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This is a leading tort case in England. It is difficult to understate its importance. Francium12 (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - a quick look at http://test.saflii.org/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=[1991]%20FSR%2062 shows that many important (including many high) courts have cited it, both within the UK and in other common law countries. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be an important leading case in UK law. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per the cites that Philosopher posted. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the article has been expanded. Should be moved to Kaye v Robertson once the AfD has completed - there is no need for punctuation after the "v". Pointillist (talk) 21:59, 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.