Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawsuits of New Brunswick

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 00:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits of New Brunswick[edit]

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

Is this list needed? I don't think that many enough lawsuits exist there, that it needs its own article. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 23:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator After reading the comments here, I have changed my mind about this deletion proposal. Page should indeed be kept, and proposing this page for deletion was too hasty from my part. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 17:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it may just be a problem of the name, which should be List of New Brunswick case law? We do have categories for other provinces, such as Category:British Columbia case law and an entire tree for Category:United States state case law. Don't see a reason why we can't have a list, as lists and categories can co-exist. NB is one of Canada's oldest provinces with a long legal history. And the "lawsuits" contained here do seem to be significant, from a jurisprudence POV -- at least to a layman like moi. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to add Category:Canadian case law lists to the list. I'll do so now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- @Shawn in Montreal: is it significant that the cases originated in New Brunswick as opposed to another province? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think. Enough that Category:Canadian law by province or territory exists.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree 110% with @Shawn in Montreal:. Every rationale he proposes is sound. I wouldn't want to be forced to delete other useful wikis like Category:United States state case law. If @Ilyushka88: were to crusade on this basis, he might have an editor war on his hands, and I for one am unsure I would join him. Look at List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1760–79. I mean, what would possess anybody to read that list of broken wiki links? Maybe Ilyushka88 should be designated to fix or delete that page. Is this a case of overzealotry and self-indulgence, or maybe a misunderstanding due to youth or language? Thanks at any rate to Ilyushka88: I added Category:Legal history of Canada to the page in question. And thanks to Shawn in Montreal for the strong support. Spem Reduxit (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Spem Reduxit (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the request for withdrawal, I've gone ahead and moved the page to List of New Brunswick case law, per above. If it is closed as keep, then I daresay the lead would need to be written at a little, at least. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as moved. It's very likely that laypeople would need this, and lawyers may want to use this as a starting point for their research. Easily passes WP:LIST by any reasonable person standard. It needs copyediting, but is not so bad as to warrant WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2016 (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.