Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lilian Ladele tribunal

The Lilian Ladele tribunal

The Lilian Ladele tribunal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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) — BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Response from creating author:

1) I can't see anything obvious in WP:NOTNEWS which this article appears to be in breach of. Can the nominator explain his/her reasoning?

Yes, he can. Without wanting this to sound sarcastic, it's on Sentence 1 on the WP:NOTNEWS page! - "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." (My emphasis) "Tribunal finds for woman" hardly qualifies! BFG1701 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What you've just said sounds to me like a very good argument against deletion. If this decision isn't overturned, then clearly it is going to be "verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact". If it is overturned, then I agree, it becomes a "footnote", in which case the Christian Institute article is probably the only place it needs mentioning. SP-KP (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"If this decision isn't overturned, then clearly it is going to be..." etc. Complete speculation on your part. Overturned or not, it's just a tribunal finding! But as we seem to have radically differing views on what constitutes a major news event, I suggest we leave it up to our fellow editors to decide. BFG1701 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

2) Nowhere, to my knowledge is there anything stating that article names need to be "search terms", and anyway this is not in itself a reason for deletion, but a reason for renaming to a better name.

3) Not a reason for deletion; a reason for improving the article.

4) Some sources give Lilian as the name. Whatever, mis-spellings are not a reason for deletion.

5) In contrast to the above this is a good, sensible, point. Yes, merge & redirect might well be a good solution.

SP-KP (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)