Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Khan (South Africa)

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 delete. Sandstein 14:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R v Khan (South Africa)[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)

Legal case which fails WP:GNG, ~~relies on a single primary source~~, previous afd was closed keep, but I think it could be different this time. Two prior reasons for keep aren't valid any more:

One was the similarity in names, as it previously had the same name as the R v Khan article but different punctuation so it was argued keep as an obvious redirect.

Second was the argument that it satisfied WP:CASES. However that has since failed.

I will ask the main keep !voter to weigh in, since they may be able to explain further how they considered it to meet GNG as they said at the time. Mako001 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited is a dissertation which includes only a small amount of content regarding this case -- less than two pages which are double-spaced with wide margins. I don't see how this article satisfies WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability. The single source is one dissertation. Kill it now. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:21, 19 December 2021 (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.