Talk:WER v REW
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 March 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Notable edit
@DanielJCooper: FYI. I submitted this to the WP:RS/N here. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Recent expansion and significance/notability of case edit
Mid-AfD, this series of edits has expanded the content and added more detail to what was previously a stub of unclear notability. However, it's not clear this solves the problem. For example:
- This source is cited to suggest the case is a "notable example" of the use of a superinjunction. It doesn't say that. It says superinjunctions collectively are a notable example of where privacy and social media issues collide.
- This source is cited to as showing the case is "significant" because of that part of the ruling discussing aspects of rights of appeal. Again, the source does not use the word "significant", it simply describes what the ruling said.
For evidence that the case is significant in legal terms, eg by establishing a major precedent, or notable more generally for any other reason, we'd need a third-party source asserting that. A bit of tabloid reporting because of the links to a celebrity and a few pro-forma law reports setting out the ruling don't reach that standard. As noted at the AfD, if that's the bar, WP should list 1,000s of legal cases. N-HH talk/edits 12:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)