Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional review

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional review

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, incoherent, tendentious original research. Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to judicial review, essentially the same topic. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Constitutional review is a well-defined and very rich of single featurs that make id different from it's broader genre - judicial review. If the article may be improved (an I agree), ok, but would it be ignoring four hundred thousand entries between quotes the best solution? Millbug ^talk 17:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it be--I mean, keep. It's a legitimate topic. It's one more imperfect Wikipedia page, but it's not an illegitimate topic. (For that matter the same could be said of the judicial review page.) Innisfree987 (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if really the current content is no good, which I am not competent to determine, then stubify the article. It will be better than nothing while we wait for someone to develop this topic which I am enclined to believe is very much notable. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid stub on a very notable topic. In countries with separate constitutional courtss, constitutional review is a significant aspect of the government, and it often differs significantly from judicial review as we generally think of it. The current article doesn't do a great job of demonstrating that, but what do you expect from a stub? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.