Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commotion Ltd v Rutty

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commotion Ltd v Rutty

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed a PROD per User:A._B.'s prerogative, but as far as I can find, there are still no reliable sources that talk about this case that aren't just restating the facts of the case, and while I'm no lawyer or otherwise have expertise in the matter, those sources look to be mostly regurgitating anything it can get its hands onto rather that "this case and that case are important for xyz reason". No newspapers that I can find reported on the case at the time or since. Also as an aside, the creator of the page for....some reason, decided to have a very odd and irrelevant image for the infobox, but that's fixable in the case that I've overlooked sources that establish this case's nobility. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Scholar lists 40+ references to this decision; it set an important precedent apparently. The article does not discuss its importance. I agree that's an odd image. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added several refs to the article. Google Books shows this case is cited by a number of books. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a too-long quote. Can I snip it down? Bearian (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cut down on the extraneous matters in the two long quote. I’d love for someone to add in more cases and books that cited this case. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Google Scholar citations above show many articles discussing this case or how it has been used to advance other legal issues, I think it's notable. Coverage shows it's had a lasting impact on the legal world. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.