Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Duyn v. Home Office


 * 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. John254 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Van Duyn v. Home Office
this case was important because it established that a directive can have direct effect


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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts; the article is incredibly unclear, provides little context, and one reference. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC) *Speedy Delete Fails WP:RS and completely unclear as to what this is about... to the point that I feel that it should be tagged with a. --Pmedema (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a legal citation followed by discussion of the case. It's only nonsense if you don't understand legal casenotes. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Rewrite looks good and is now understandable. !vote changed. --Pmedema (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs improvement. A quick Google search for the title indicates that this case is considered notable in EU law, because it was one of the first to deal with the rights of movement of workers between EU jurisdictions. (Further, EU law is less well-covered than U.S. law and British common law on Wikipedia; it would be nice to expand its coverage a little bit.) The article itself is a mess...and is already tagged for improvement on those counts. TheFeds 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think the existing material is going to provide help for a redraft. Just make sure that a possibly interested WikiProject is informed of the potential article before it is nuked. - Mgm|(talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article rewritten into something vaguely useful. 600+ book citations means this clearly is notable case of international law. Set multiple precedents. Article still needs work but is at least a stub now. --Rividian (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable precedent in international law. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable case. Should be expanded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems to be a notable case. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (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.