Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamplin v James


 * 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.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tamplin v James

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This appears to be a legal brief of a non-notable court case.  Ja Ga  talk 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This case is notable: a search of the lawbooks indicates it is a widely known precedent in contract law (see here just for Australian cases). This would clearly pass WP:Notabilty (law) (currently a proposed guideline. The problem is the article is terrible, and perhaps includes a copyright violation of a law report (the headnote reads like a law report). I will aim to fix this article over the next day or so. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Based on the link provided, I agree this is a well-known precedent case, but the current version makes me think it might possibly be easier to start fresh than to fix this entry. I'll wait and see if Mkativerata can work this out. - Mgm|(talk) 12:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, by "fix", I meant "re-do"...! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral . Agree with MacGyverMagic, the best solution would be to see if this can be cleaned up. Agree that notability of the topic exists, though. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to Keep, below. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have done my work on the article now. My comments on the article's talk page set out some further areas of improvement that are beyond my access to resources and legal expertise. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mkativerata's excellent work. Notability seems clear. Well done. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.

