Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Loubser
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- R v Loubser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Lead section admits that it has "a very brief report", so the article is essentially admitting that it lacks notability. Mako001 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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.