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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:20, 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) — BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"If this decision isn't overturned, then clearly it is going to be..." etc. Complete speculation on your part: nowhere in the article is this event's alleged major impact asserted. Overturned or not, it's just a tribunal finding! Not even precedent setting under UK law. 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)[reply]

We do seem to have very differing views, but I think we're getting quite closer to working out why that is, so I'd like to continue this discussion for a little while if that's OK (but yes, let's have views from others too). My understanding, based on the reporting I've read, of what this tribunal has established is that is twofold (a) a specific point that registrars have a "conscience opt-out" for civil partnership ceremonies, and (ii) a more general principle that, in some circumstances, employers should take account of their employees' individual views (however out-of-date or irrational they may be) in determining what work they can be asked to do, and cannot dismiss them for refusing to do certain types of work for "conscience reasons". I agree that the latter would require many more tribunal cases of a wider variety in order for this principle to become firmly established, but the former (assuming this finding is not overturned) is pretty clear-cut. Have I understood the legal situation incorrectly? SP-KP (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion needs to be limited to the deletion or otherwise of this article, therefore I restrict myself to the article's worthiness of inclusion here. Regardless of the CI's claims, tribunal findings of this nature do not create new points of law nor establish far-reaching precedents: no opt-outs have been established, no over-arching religious trump card has been created, both relevant Acts remain in full force regardless of anyone's religious leanings. This case may be interesting to those of us who make our living from litigation (and for those who are simply socially aware, I suppose) but aside from affecting the two parties involved (and having now read the full transcript, I think it unlikely the decision will stand - but that is speculation on my part, educated or otherwise! <grin>) it remains light-years away from having the significance you suggest. BFG1701 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 :::We do seem to have very differing views, but I think we're getting quite closer to working out why that is, so I'd like to continue this discussion for a little while if that's OK (but yes, let's have views from others too). My understanding, based on the reporting I've read, of what this tribunal has established is that is twofold (a) a specific point that registrars have a "conscience opt-out" for civil partnership ceremonies, and (ii) a more general principle that, in some circumstances, employers should take account of their employees' individual views (however out-of-date or irrational they may be) in determining what work they can be asked to do, and cannot dismiss them for refusing to do certain types of work for "conscience reasons". I agree that the latter would require many more tribunal cases of a wider variety in order for this principle to become firmly established, but the former (assuming this finding is not overturned) is pretty clear-cut. Have I understood the legal situation incorrectly? [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] ([[User talk:SP-KP|talk]]) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
-:::: This discussion needs to be limited to the deletion or otherwise of this article, therefore I restrict myself to the article's worthiness of inclusion here.  Regardless of the CI's claims, tribunal findings of this nature do not create new points of law nor establish far-reaching precedents: no opt-outs have been established, now over-arching trump card has been created, both relevant Acts remain in full force.  This case may be interesting to those of us who make our living from litigation (and for those who are simply socially aware, I suppose) but aside from affecting the two parties involved (and having now read the full transcript, I think it unlikely the decision will stand - but that is speculation on my part, educated or otherwise! <grin>) it remains light-years away from having the significance you suggest. [[User:BFG1701|BFG1701]] ([[User talk:BFG1701|talk]]) 22:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::: This discussion needs to be limited to the deletion or otherwise of this article, therefore I restrict myself to the article's worthiness of inclusion here.  Regardless of the CI's claims, tribunal findings of this nature do not create new points of law nor establish far-reaching precedents: no opt-outs have been established, no over-arching religious trump card has been created, both relevant Acts remain in full force regardless of anyone's religious leanings.  This case may be interesting to those of us who make our living from litigation (and for those who are simply socially aware, I suppose) but aside from affecting the two parties involved (and having now read the full transcript, I think it unlikely the decision will stand - but that is speculation on my part, educated or otherwise! <grin>) it remains light-years away from having the significance you suggest. [[User:BFG1701|BFG1701]] ([[User talk:BFG1701|talk]]) 22:18, 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.