Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly per WP:NOTE. A brief search of Google news reveals no hits. Upon doing more research I see nothing to suggest that this tribunal decision received significant coverage. Additionally, this article is sourced with a single primary source, this tribunal decision. Viewing the article's history shows that this tribunal decision has been used to source various facts about Mr. Stopps to include his age and location in direct violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY which sates: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Tiptoety talk 02:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed that this does not meet our notability requirements. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Striking this for now. There are some reliable sources available for this, and I'd been meaning to hunt some down to add them to the article and see where that lands us, but I haven't had time to do so as of yet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The article claims this "was significant in Canadian law because it found that a women-only admission policy of a public gym was not discrimination." Any legal textbooks have this case listed in them as significant?  And is this what the courts found?   D r e a m Focus  22:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  22:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Like the nominator, I am unable to find any sources that actually demonstrate that the case was as significant as the article claims. The only time I can find the case mentioned at all is as a very minor footnote from a presentation at a research conference.  If any additional sources come up that do demonstrate notability, as Dream Focus suggested, I would be willing to change my vote, but as I was unable to do so, its Delete for now.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources work for me. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Received significant coverage: The Vancouver Province, The Prince Arthur Herald, Only Magazine, Reuters (French), The Lethbridge Herald. Other offline sources available via WP:REX:
 * Boyle, Christine. "A Human Right to Group Self-Identification?", Canadian Journal of Women & the Law. 2011, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p488-518. (Database: EBSCO)
 * "Canadian guy fails in bid for discrimination", The Gold Coast Bulletin (November 25, 2006). (Database: EBSCO)
 * Jill St. Louis (November 21, 2006). "Human rights tribunal rules against man who wanted to join women-only gym", The Canadian Press. (Database: EBSCO)
 * -- Green C  02:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets the threshold of notability per the sources provided above by User:Green Cardamom. NorthAmerica1000 14:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources indicate notability. James500 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (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.