Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis v Dayton Hudson Corporation, 128 Mich. App. 165


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lewis v Dayton Hudson Corporation, 128 Mich. App. 165

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like an original research and it violates Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought as one of the contents of What Wikipedia is not. The article is wholly unsourced and the author of the article is the only source. Some info looks like a hoax. Mediran talk 00:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, but not per nom. The name of the article itself is a citation to the court decision this posting is attempt to summarize, so calling it unsourced is inaccurate. There is no indication this court decision is notable, however, and this looks like nothing more than a law student's brief of a decision they had to read for class. Which doesn't make it OR necessarily as it is likely an attempt at a straightforward description rather than novel analysis, but it means I don't see anything worth saving here. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Postdlf. This appears to be a law student's case notes rather than an encyclopedia article. The facts of the case are not a hoax based on the decision found here, although I am not sure that the article creator has explained the court's reasoning correctly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources, no notability claimed or established. Wikipedia is not a repository of court cases. J I P  &#124; Talk 04:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of notability, either in the article or in my own research. The 1983 case has been cited by other cases, but that's what you'd expect from a case decided three decades ago: almost any case more than a year or two old eventually gets referred to (take a quick look at any volume of Shepard's Citations), and that is not an indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per TJRC. This is not an especially interesting, well-cited, or unique case; cf. Sherwood v. Walker, a well-known case from Michigan law. Bearian (talk)
 * Delete. For all reasons above along with the fact that there's no reliable secondary sources for such an article. Lord Roem (talk) 04:33, 31 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.