- 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 no consensus. asilvering (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Creen v Wright (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)
Not enough sources to claim reliability. I checked online and there were not many sources. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Leaning keep or move to draft. This book has some coverage. I have not looked in depth, but it comes up in others. BD2412 T 01:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC) 
Comment: I have asked for comments from members of the relevant project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. I do not consider this to be canvassing, because my intent is to elicit discussion. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. 78 hits in google scholar. A fair number of books in a google books search with coverage. Plus a number of university websites cropping up with publications citing it in a variety of ways in a normal google search. I don't think it would be terribly difficult to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. I'm not a lawyer though so the sources are a out of my expertise. A don't believe WP:BEFORE was properly followed, or if it was, not competently.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (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.