- 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. Feel free to properly disambiguate, but keep WP:2DAB in mind if only the two cases are notable ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
R v Khan
- R v Khan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced. I found some sources but less than enough to establish notability. Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 21:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please identify the sources that you found. There are quite a few reported cases called "R v Khan". It would be helpful to have more information, including details of where the case is reported and which court decided the case. James500 ( talk) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- The case is discussed in this source from the University of Zululand: [1] [2]. According to that source (footnote 18 of chapter 2 and footnote 21 of chapter 3) the case is reported at 1949 (4) SA 868 (N). ["SA" is an abbreviation for South African Law Reports]. James500 ( talk) 15:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- The case reported at 1949 (4) SA 868 (N) is notable. It satisfies GNG. The case appears to have been decided by the KwaZulu-Natal High Court (formerly the Natal Provincial Division) and seems therefore to also satisfy criteria 2 of
WP:CASES:
[3]. [The abbreviation "N" seems to refer to that court.]
James500 (
talk) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
-
R v Khan is also an obvious redirect to
R. v. Khan. We do not normally delete plausible redirects on grounds of notability (WP:R).
James500 (
talk) 18:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment One case is about a killed animal, and the other is about a raped child. I can't follow you. Could you please explain me what sort of redirect are we talking about? Regards. --
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk) 08:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirect explains what a redirect is. We normally allow a redirect from an obvious alternative spelling of a name (including plausible misnomers). The present subject matter isn't relevant because redirecting a page involves blanking it. The two pages have the same name with slightly different punctuation. The difference between them is two full stops. [The South African case appears to be about "charge splitting" (charging a defendent with multiple offences in respect of a single act).] James500 ( talk) 14:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment One case is about a killed animal, and the other is about a raped child. I can't follow you. Could you please explain me what sort of redirect are we talking about? Regards. --
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk) 08:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
-
R v Khan is also an obvious redirect to
R. v. Khan. We do not normally delete plausible redirects on grounds of notability (WP:R).
James500 (
talk) 18:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- The case reported at 1949 (4) SA 868 (N) is notable. It satisfies GNG. The case appears to have been decided by the KwaZulu-Natal High Court (formerly the Natal Provincial Division) and seems therefore to also satisfy criteria 2 of
WP:CASES:
[3]. [The abbreviation "N" seems to refer to that court.]
James500 (
talk) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The legal eagles have determined that it's notable, so: (1) add the above refs; (2) move to R v Khan (South Africa); (3) move R. v. Khan to R v Khan (Canada); (4) re-create the present page as a disambig : Noyster (talk), 11:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Am I supposed to do all that? Would you like me to prepare you a Turkish coffee also? :-) -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, per User:James500, but with an added request for caution. "Khan" is a reasonably common surname, and it appears that there are at least two cases that have this name. Care should be taken that only details from the "trespass and game shooting" case end up in the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 23:27, 24 October 2014 (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.