Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S v De Oliveira

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. Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S v De Oliveira[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)

On the face of the article, I see nothing that makes this case notable. At the moment, it is cited only to primary sources. There is no secondary commentary about the case, nothing to indicate why it is significant. Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Comments: None-notable per nom. An average criminal law appeals case, with primary sources only, that apparently involves living people so is held to a higher standard. Even if there were local sources this would not rise to the level of notability unless there was significant regional or national coverage and I could not find that on a search. Otr500 (talk)

Comments: There have been some mixed signals with some articles but the fact that there are only primary sources, the case did not set a legal precedent, bring up constitutional issues, or involve the Supreme Court of South Africa, as well as not having independent coverage, it fails to pass GNG or BLP guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in terms of anything unique. Nor is it a case with extensive coverage from what I can tell. If someone recreates this in the future and adds better extensive sources I will !vote differently.BabbaQ (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2019 (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.