Talk:rugg V Ryan

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Procedural close, 10 May 2023, see discussion.
keep, 24 April 2023, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rugg v Ryan redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Australia: Law / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Rugg v Ryan is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by Simba1409 ( talk · contribs) on 23 April 2023 with the comment:
Does not meet WP:GNG. Case has not even gone to trial yet and if no new precedent is set in the outcome of this case, then the court case certainly will not be notable in the slightest. The existence of this court action is best covered on the individual Wikipedia pages of those involved (which it already is).
It was contested by GMH Melbourne ( talk · contribs) on 2023-04-23 with the comment:
A simple google search of 'Rugg v Ryan' provides more than enough sources to establish notability in line with WP:GNG.

Settlement

Oh would you look at that. The case amounted to nothing. Shocking.

This article should now be deleted. Simba1409 ( talk) 13:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply