Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thompson v. Johnson County Community College
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 8 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 14:18, 8 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thompson v. Johnson County Community College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable intermediate appellate court opinion, unpublished in the federal reporter, table case (along with 27 other unpublished cases having the same cite). Not especially important as a matter of law, only cited in three other cases. GregJackP Boomer! 04:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important decision cited in multiple cases and well-covered in reliable and verifiable sources in the press based on the nature of the case and its relevance in privacy law. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A simple Google Search has revealed that there are a lot of references to this case on the web. It clearly has some level of importance in the world of workplace law and privacy and has been discussed in multiple sources, books, articles, etc. For example, Google Books turns up references to the case in over 600 books. There's clearly something to it and I believe that it is worth keeping the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, important case law which went all the way to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. — Cirt (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2013 (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.