Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex parte Goldman
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ex parte Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Legal case which fails WP:GNG, based on a single primary source. Google only turns up results for Wikipedia and it's mirrors, then loses relevance without finding any secondary sources. No case to keep this one. Mako001 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The only source cited is the legal decision itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (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.