Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaver v NATFHE


 * 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. There seemed little challenge of the actual notability of the subject and although the majority of sources are behind paywalls or offline, that doesn't diminish their reliability and such is often the way with specialist subjects like law. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Weaver v NATFHE

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The one reference is "under construction" and does not justify the article.

Also, some people might leave me messages saying that I shouldn't be requesting deletion so early, but this user could have userified it first. No excuses. qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC) qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Another reference has been added - needs verification. qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple hits on Nexis (paywall) and in UK Guardian Newspaper (in digital archive cant link, Tuesday, October 06, 1987) and is mentioned in at least one book on UK labor law. Unless you are challenging the actual notability of the topic AFD is not the place to go. WP:SOFIXIT --Savonneux (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the creator should have included that. qö₮$@37 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:DEL It doesnt appear that a "thorough attempt[s] to find reliable sources to verify" has went down.--Savonneux (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article alleges it is a precedent, but without any citation to prove so.  Can anyone find such evidence? Bearian (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable to me, other complaints under WP:SOFIXIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - not notable, no coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't see any serious coverage available. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * keep no valid reason for nomination given. riffic (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - no valid reason for deletion has been provided - sources verify contents. Claritas (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The case apparently existed, but it received zero coverage in WP:Reliable sources that I could find - so it is not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2010 (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.