Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lilian Ladele tribunal: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:28, 15 July 2008

The Lilian Ladele tribunal

1) There is no such specific artifact as The Lilian (sic) Ladele tribunal: it was a standard, unnamed employment tribunal, consequently, invented and useless search term.

2) Breaches WP:NOT#NEWS. Article is just a stub cobbled together from newspaper snippets.

3) POV in that it gives details only from Ladele's side of case.

4) Really sloppy research - she's Lillian not Lilian: originating author advised, but...

5) This case already covered more accurately and with balance in the Christian Institute article, the appropriate place IMHO.

In summary, pointless search term, POV, bangs up against WP:NOT#NEWS and regurgitates information better written and placed elsewhere. BFG1701 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 :{{la|The Lilian Ladele tribunal}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:The Lilian Ladele tribunal|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lilian Ladele tribunal]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lilian Ladele tribunal|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 15#{{anchorencode:The Lilian Ladele tribunal}}|View log]])</noinclude>
-) Breaches [[WP:NOT#NEWS]].  Article is just a stub cobbled together from newspaper snippets.
 ) There is no such specific artifact as The Lilian (sic) Ladele tribunal: it was a standard, unnamed employment tribunal, consequently, invented and useless search term.
+) Breaches [[WP:NOT#NEWS]].  Article is just a stub cobbled together from newspaper snippets.
 ) POV in that it gives details only from Ladele's side of case.