Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugg v Ryan (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Procedural close‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Withdrawn by nominator, as noted below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Rugg v Ryan
AfDs for this article:


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

Withdrawn by nominator. Article to be merged instead of deleted. Jack4576 (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This page is for a proposed litigation that was settled before it arose, and so refers to a court case that does not exist. Due to its settlement, the outcome of the court case was legally insignificant, and the case itself is not notable as a separate entry per se. I propose that content of this entry be deleted and reworked into the Wiki pages for Ryan & Rugg as persons; perhaps as a paragraph remarking that they litigated against each other. Jack4576 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics,  and Australia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg ––– GMH MELBOURNE   TALK  08:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The last AfD was only closed a week ago. Thus seems a WP:POINTy nomination and not a good use of the community's time. As the nominator said in another AfD "once notable always notable" and "Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole". LibStar (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Starting a 2nd AfD so soon after is only really acceptable if it was closed as 'no consensus' due to lack of participation. If the close was unacceptable then contest it at User talk:Guerillero, the admin that closed it. If not happy with their response then take it to WP:DRV. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd urge you to assume good faith LibStar.
 * The AfD was a week ago, but situation has changed two days ago.
 * This is because since the last AfD, the case was settled. See: here, and here.
 * Hence the nomination now. The arguments for keep under the previous AfD no longer hold. Jack4576 (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the previous close was acceptable; it was a good decision based on what we knew at the time.
 * Hence it seemed more appropriate for a new AfD on new facts; rather than re-opening the old one.
 * Thanks Spiderone. Jack4576 (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Replying to LibStar's comment: "once notable always notable" - this case never happened. The subject does not exist. It was a prospective litigation that settled.
 * Before it settled it was prospectively notable as a legally significant employment law case. There is no prospect of that now, hence no notability.
 * re: 'Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole'; obviously when I made that comment, I was not referring to nominations of this kind. I would implore you LibStar to avoid randomly quoting out-of-context sentences from my other AfD threads like this. Its not constructive.
 * Besides, I am proposing to Merge, not delete. Jack4576 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: "The last AfD was only closed a week ago"
 * As I've stated above, the AfD was a week ago, but situation changed two days ago.
 * This is because since the last AfD, the case was settled. See: here, and here.
 * Jack4576 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are proposing to merge, please do not waste the community's time with this deletion discussion. Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole. Please follow the instructions at WP:MERGEPROP. This AfD should be closed as a procedural keep, as even you as a nominator are not even seeking deletion. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Geez. Tone. Sure, happy to close as procedural keep and merge. Jack4576 (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The initial deletion discussion and this discussion could have all been avoided if a certain overzealous editor wasn't so keen to create an article for purely political purposes (after previous politically biased edits were rejected by 3rd opinion on another page) on a case where a trial hadn't even started.
 * The potential for this to fizzle into nothing was quite high and if the 'disagreement' wasn't notable enough for its own article now (which it isn't), then it never truly was.
 * I hope all involved learn a valuable lesson from this, particularly the creator of this article. Simba1409 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2023 (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.