Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miles v European Schools

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. Although there was no strong consensus to keep the article, the arguments presented by those !voting 'keep' strongly suggest that the subject meets WP:GNG. One opinion arguing for 'draftify' all but endorsed their line of argument. Those arguing for deletion failed to respond to the sources brought forward. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miles v European Schools[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

No indication of significance or WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, only routine coverage in legal databases ITBF (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ITBF (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. The precedent established by this judgment has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. It is impossible to understand the meaning of "court or tribunal" in Article 267 of the TFEU treaty, and the consequent effect of that article on which bodies can make preliminary references to the ECJ, without this judgment. Accordingly, it will be necessary for Wikipedia to explain what this judgment decided. The judgment is correctly cited as "C-196/09", but is also called "Miles", "Paul Miles", "Miles and Others", "Miles and ors", "Écoles européennes", "Europäische Schulen" and various similar names. For the avoidance of doubt, the judgment is a document. James500 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any mention of this decision in Jstor or GScholar. A court decision alone isn't GNG, we need sources discussing it. I don't see any law journal articles about this subject. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find mention of this case in GScholar (and a very significant amount of mention in a very significant number of sources). There are law journal articles entirely about this subject: [1] [2] [3]. They appear in literally the first page of results in GScholar and are very difficult not to notice because they stick out like a sore thumb. There are many other journal articles that include coverage of the case in GScholar and elsewhere. The actual number of sources with some mention in GScholar is roughly on the order of 170+ [4]. JSTOR contains very few law journals and is not an appropriate place to stop looking for coverage in them. There is also coverage in the journals and publications held on university and university press websites, and in the journals held on the sites that actually hold most of the law journals. You should have looked at Google Books which has plenty of coverage in more than fifty books and periodicals: [5] [6]. (I will add some if I have time, though I really think that three full periodical articles is more than enough). James500 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC) I wrote the preceding comment before the !vote below was posted. James500 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the search done here is on the case number (C-196/09) and not the title of article. Since searching on the legal case number provides better sources than the article title should there be a redirect from the case number to the article? As others have noted, not much turns up in a search on "Miles v European Schools." Lamona (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think for me it is probably merge to a target to be discussed. My thoughts are (and I accept that I'm not at all knowledgeable in this area) that the case appears to have had a very marginal impact on the overall running of the ECJ. If it has had a more important role than it appears, presumably it should have a section on European Court of Justice. If it did and the section needed to be fleshed out then maybe it could be a stub later. There are very few references I can find when searching for the case number. JMWt (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate & Draftify There are numerous reliable secondary sources, including scholarly sources, discussing this decision, as can be seen from even a cursory use of Google Books and Google Scholar. So the case is clearly notable, and there are clearly sources, but there is virtually no content to the article. So, neither Keep nor Deletion seems to be in order here; rather this is a classic case for Incubation per WP:ATD-I Banks Irk (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you are arguing for a Merge or Redirect in an AFD, please specify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per James500. Looking at Google Books, the case seems to be cited quite frequently in European Union law textbooks. Of the books with previews, this book from the Oxford University Press devotes the bulk of a page to the judgement here. I'm assuming good faith that James500's sources do cover the case. I also agree that JSTOR is not an appropriate search to judge the notability of legal topics, since that is largely outside its jurisdiction. By comparison, a HeinOnline search for "Miles" plus the ECJ citation number gives 61 results This is definitely on the drier and more technical end of the spectrum, but the topic meets WP:GNG and should be kept per WP:NEXIST despite the brevity of the article. If there is consensus to delete though, the best merge target as an alternative to deletion would be the subject matter of the case, Preliminary_ruling#Courts_that_may_ask_questions -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:10, 7 February 2023 (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.