Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial activism in the European Union

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. merging or selective merging is possible as normal Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial activism in the European Union[edit]

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

Essay-like, absolutely devoid of focus. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might be a few lines mergeable to European Court of Justice. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The subject matter is of major encyclopedic interest; moreover, significant and appropriate source material is readily available. — C M B J 21:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is absolutely devoid of any policy-based reason to delete. The topic is, of course, highly notable. Warden (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the topic of the article is encyclopedic. The name is however a bit ambiguous. It should really be something along the lines of "judicial activism in the European Court of Justice". The present page name could be construed as including judicial activism in the courts of member states of the Union. This can of course be fixed by moving the page without deleting it. James500 (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No opinion about delete/keep but it would be possible to merge this to Judicial activism because that article is in need of more outside-the-u.s. perspective. This assumes that any OR material is handled appropriately. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Judicial activism. There's really not enough material to justify having two separate articles. bd2412 T 04:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the notability guidelines. There does appear to be enough content to build a complete article, through if this is not possible, I would support a merger. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to European Court of Justice. This concerns only the ECJ, not the courts in the Union as a whole. It is true that the Court's jurisprudence has been subject to criticism on account of activism, but that should be covered in the main article. We do not normally carry separate "criticism of ..." articles, which is what this amounts to, if the issue is not adequately addressed in the main article. Also, "judicial activism" is a loaded term that is also particular to US discourse and shoult not be used as an article title here. The ECJ article should cover the jurisprudence of the ECJ from the point of view of its effects, its critics and its supporters. Sandstein 08:24, 3 March 2012 (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.