Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WER v REW


 * 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 no consensus. As concerns WER v REW, at least in the present, improved state. There's however consensus to merge Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd into WER v REW.  Sandstein  11:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WER v REW

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insignificant legal case for non-notable person. Only sources are Popbitch (a primary source as original party to the super injunction) and Society of Editors - a niche website of specialised interest. Article is unlikely to ever pass GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related page for approx the same reason. Not going to pass GNG, insignificant legal case of non-notable subject:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per O Fortuna. Please also note O Fortuna's other recent edits to the article.  (addition 12:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)) Delete .    I did leave a note on the talk pages of a bunch of articles like this to notify the creator/maintainer of those article,  that many are likely to end up here. I also posted a note at WikiProject Law to see if anyone there thinks these articles need to be saved. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I was shocked that anyone would think something this far under the public-consciousness radar would warrant an article to begin with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no need to list every law case in the UK, especially ones where there will never be enough detail to bring it beyond a totally uninformative stub. If the person concerned was notable, and mentioning the case would pass BLP concerns, it could perhaps merit a brief reference on their page - but they're not of course. Alternatively, it could be referred to in the broader page about superinjunctions or privacy injunctions - which it already is. So this can go.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a no-brainer of there ever was one. Do I feel snow in the air? Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd into WER v REW. The case had significant implications in English case-law and has been discussed regularly, in reliable sources, since; but they are effectively the same case, so no need for two distinct articles. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  11:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting and explaining! I will change my !vote.  I hope you respond to my post at WikiProject Law about the other similar "Super Injuctions" that have equally weak RS at this time.  Daniel said they are stubs, so maybe there is RS for them also.  --David Tornheim (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what are the "significant implications" for English case law? They may well exist, but I'm not aware of any, and there's nothing in this comment or the article in question to explain what they are. The only reason AFAIK that the case was discussed at all in the media was because there was a vague link to an actual notable person, which led to a bit of tabloid interest. I'm still not clear that either page is needed or justified.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ps: OK, I see that page was expanded since I last looked. Please see comments here on that (placed there as probably too detailed for this AfD page).  N-HH   talk / edits  12:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or delete?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  05:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * In relation to above: as far as legal decisions go it really was not significant. It set no new precedent, just being an interpretation of existing law. It wasnt relevant in the wider issue of super-injunctions (cases such as the Trafig toxic dumping etc having the real meat in the area), and arguably it would not have raised a blip if it wasnt for the relationship to a much more famous non-party. A person with no celebrity connection wouldnt have made the press except as a passing mention in a law review. The key quote is the final one from the Guardian: "a further setback to the power of privacy orders to restrict reporting". Emphasis mine, this was just another in a line of super-injunction related cases at the time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It now passes the WP:GNG, having been covered in multiple, third party, reliable, independent sources, with both depth and persistence of coverage. The issues raised in the nomination have been addressed, in so far that the notability of.one of the parties is less than the other, and the sourcing has been improved. About 500%, in numbers :) ...Whiiiich the article did not when it was nominated.  &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge. Notabilty (now established) for its superinjunction status rather than notability of parties.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  05:26, 21 March 2017 (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.