Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association

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. The possibility of a merger still exists. If somebody wants to pursue that, they can do so by discussing it on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association

Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association (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)

I'm seeing a lot of these cases that seem rather mundane. I can't see how this is particularly notable for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This case was tried in 2010 by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a leading case with (to date) 242 citations in the canlii database. It would be a pity if the opinions of a few wikipedia editors were to overrule the inclusion here of a case which was joined by no fewer than six other Attorneys-General and eight distinct amicus curiae who together felt it to be a worthwhile case on which to spend their time and (for some, taxpayer) monies. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That isn't really the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an impeccably well-reasoned argument. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And one that doesn't explain how the article meets our criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Your most recent sentence makes no sense. Spem Reduxit (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• While my preference is to keep, since this case is cited [1] several times by academic sources, but the content should at least be merged to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario), which is the law challenged by this case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:48, 17 July 2017 (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.