Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Dimension v Kruger

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Extra Dimension v Kruger

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Extra Dimension v Kruger (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)

as stated in the previous proposal for deletion it is not referenced, and there is no proof of notability. This is especially vital as the article also concerns (likely) living persons. Mako001 (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have included my response on the article talk to the editor who deprodded this one below,

Peet M. Bekker, Criminal Procedure Handbook covers it and it appears to have set an important legal precedent in South Africa. Not sure on the depth of coverage though. Primary source. SpinningSpark 17:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Afd'd this one now, since being mentioned in a Criminal Procedure Handbook hardly justifies notability. A quick google search turns up only results for Wikipedia, its mirrors, and a primary source (SAFLII). The SAFLII result only mentions it in a couple of sentences as part of the precedent for another case. Interestingly, no other SAFLII results showed up, if it was such an important case, why hasn't it been used as a precedent more often? and if it is notable, why hasn't it been covered by secondary sources? Mako001 (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The article does not show notability or coverage. Maybe one day the page will be well written and sourced and it will show notability or coverage. Let's wait another day or two. If not improved, delete it.Topjur01 (talk) 23:56, 24 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.