 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rugg v Ryan redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
| This page was proposed for deletion by Simba1409 (talk · contribs) on 23 April 2023 with the comment: Does not meet WP:GNG. Case has not even gone to trial yet and if no new precedent is set in the outcome of this case, then the court case certainly will not be notable in the slightest. The existence of this court action is best covered on the individual Wikipedia pages of those involved (which it already is). It was contested by GMH Melbourne (talk · contribs) on 2023-04-23 with the comment: A simple google search of 'Rugg v Ryan' provides more than enough sources to establish notability in line with WP:GNG. |
Settlement edit
Oh would you look at that. The case amounted to nothing. Shocking.
This article should now be deleted. Simba1409 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)