Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dehn v Attorney-General

The closure of this AfD is basically wrong. WP:NLAW may not be marked a guideline yet, but WP:IAR is policy, and it is not at all hard to accept arguments based on that. In any event, there is ample precedent for accepting arguments based on failed proposals at AfD, the obvious one being WP:NJOURNALS. In any event, the outcome of this and other AfDs indicates that criteria 2 of WP:CASES has actually achieved consensus. In any event, the RfC for that proposal was five years ago, and a lot of the criticism was that the guideline was so restrictive that it was completely redundant to GNG. IIRC, most of the criticism of CASES was directed at the ambiguity of the expression "highest court" in criteria 1. The suggestion that the sources are "brief mentions" is clearly not right either. James500 (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)