User talk:Robertson-Glasgow

Welcome

Now that you are here, I hope you will begin to contribute to cricket articles :-) Tintin (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace & Spofforth

WG made also sorts of financial demands when he toured Australia and made himself very unpopular there. I remember reading about that somewhere but I don't personally own any books about WG so I can't check it out. You would be best to ask for help on [1]. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, mate, Robertson-Glasgow 11:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Hello again. I noticed that your signature shows up as a red link. I don't know if you are aware but you can create a user page in which you may add info about yourself or the articles you are working on or links to useful features in Wikipedia. There is plenty of help and advice available if you want to set up a user page but it isn't obligatory. Best wishes. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get around to that when I need something to do. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 11:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Robertson-Glasgow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I hope you find some of the above links useful. You may also want to look in on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cashman's Spofforth Biography

Yes I do (I was coincidentally having a browse of it again a couple of days ago). I'll get it out tonight. Regards — Moondyne 01:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate. I wait with bated breath. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R-G. Sorry for the delay but I've got it now (I had a small family crisis last night and with all the commotion I confess it slipped my mind!). If you could email me - use the "E-mail this user" button on the left (on my user page), I'll reply by email with a .pdf attachment. It'll be a scan of the whole chapter on the 1882 tour (~10 pages). It's about 9pm here now so it won't be until tomorrow morning Perth time (ie. in 12 hours). Regards. — Moondyne 12:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its on its way! — Moondyne 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cashman should have an article too ! Tintin (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I could help with that. There's a fair amount of biographical information about him on the web. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 07:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Cashman's got a fair body of work now and he does make a good read. Remember to quote some reviews of his work by others so he meets notability criteria - see WP:BIO. — Moondyne 13:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studd book

On the newsgroup uk.sport.cricket, someone called Cicero is offering a copy of Grubb's book C.T. Studd Cricketer and Pioneer free to a good home. I thought that you might be interested. JH 11:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, John. Your message in one of the other groups alerted me to this and I've taken full advantage. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Thornton extract. Tintin 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Do you need anything else, mate? I'm always generous when it comes to cricket and its illustrious history. Robertson-Glasgow 15:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't yet have an article on Thornton. So may be we should do one on him ? Tintin 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. I've got a definitive article on him by Gerald Brodribb, as well as Thornton's "Talk" with A.W. Pullin. Unfortunately, I am uncertain as to how I am supposed to set up an article, and I have very little time to read the instructions on how to do so. If you could open a page for Thornton, I would gladly do the rest when I have the time. Robertson-Glasgow 08:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your books on WikiProject Cricket/Library

Hello, Albinomonkey. I was browsing through the list of books that you own on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Library and wondered if you might have a look through them for information on Spofforth and the 1882 Test Match for me. Thanks, Robertson-Glasgow 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I'll have a look through them tomorrow morning - is it his work in that specific match you are solely interested in, or Spofforth in general? – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just that match, please. Thanks a lot, mate. Robertson-Glasgow 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit in the books I have on that match, I've got the best parts about Spofforth's contributions here – if there's anything else you're after just ask.

Australian Cricket: The Game and the Players

“

Much of Spofforth's fame hangs on his performance in the Ashes Test at The Oval in 1882, when he took 7 for 46 and 7 for 44, causing the famous epitaph for English cricket in the Sporting Times. He bowled his last 11 overs for two runs and four wickets. He was carried shoulder-high from the field, having told the Australian team in the dressing room that they could prevent England scoring the 84 [sic] needed to win. A turning point in Australia's seven runs win was Spofforth's advice to captain Murdoch after Lucas and Lyttleton had played 12 maidens in succession. Bannerman deliberately misfielded a hit from Lyttleton, allowing Spofforth to get a go at him and after two more maidens Spofforths knocked down Lyttleton's stumps.

”

“

Requiring 85 to win, England reached 4 for 65. "Suddenly a new phase came over the innings," wrote C.P. Moody. "The batsmen could not get the ball past fieldsmen. Spofforth was bowling the most remarkable break-backs at tremendous pace; Boyle, from the other end, maintained a perfect length; Blackham with matchless skill took every ball that passed the batsmen ... every fieldsman strained his nerves to the utmost. A dozen successive maidens were sent down. Something of the spirit of the struggle pervaded the thousands of spectators, and their oppressive silence was punctuated by a mighty shoutl when Lyttleton broke the spell with a single." The single had been pre-arranged because Spofforth wanted a bowl at Lyttleton. Four more maidens followed and then Spofforth bowled Lyttleton. It was 5 for 66, with 19 needed. On the way to this historic win Spofforth bowled 10 maidens in his last 11 overs and took four wickets for two runs off his last seven balls.

”

200 Seasons of Australian Cricket

“

At the change of innings with England needing just 85, the question was, could they? Spofforth made his declaration: 'This thing can be done". He had them at 2/15 early, but at 2/51 with W.G. and George Ulyett hitting strongly things looked less than promising. Spofforth got Ulyett and then Harry Boyle bowled Grace – and it was 4/53. Then it seems England lost confidence – Spofforth and Boyle bowled 12 successive maidens, until a bit of gamesmanship let Lyttleton score a run, changing the bowler's targets. Spofforth then bowled 11 overs for 2 runs and four wickets. Tom Harn said, 'I observed the incoming batsmen. They had ashen faces and parched lips.' Spofforth's off-cutters on a seaming pitch were all but unplayable. Giffen said every one of them would have hit the stumps had a bat not intervened.

”

“

[Neville Cardus: ] Now I was behind his arm; I could see his superb break-back. And he bowled mainly medium pace at this time. With each off-break I could see his right hand, at the end of the swing over, finish near the left side, 'cutting' under the ball. Sometimes his arm went straight over and continued straight down in the follow-through – and then the batsmen had to tackle fierce topspin. There was the sense of the inimical in his aspect now. He seemed taller than he was half an hour ago, the right arm more sinuous. There was no excitement in him he was ... cold-blooded.

”

Hope they help... if there's anything else you need, just let me know. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for helping me out with that, Albinomonkey; it really is much appreciated, and I will put it to good use in the relevant Wikipedia articles. I would be extra-grateful, though, if you would cite the page numbers of the books from which those quotations came and see if that C.P. Moody fellow is quoted any further in Australian Cricket. What you reproduced there was the first from him about this match that I have ever read, and I would be interested to see if he has more to say.

Also, would you mind seeing if there is any information on the following two points of interest in that match? Firstly, do your sources have anything to say about C.T. Studd's supposed nervousness in waiting to go out to bat - if A.N. Hornby is quoted on that, it would be quite brilliant - and, secondly, what about something on the controversial run-out of Sammy Jones by W.G. Grace (of special interest being umpire Thoms's rejoinder to the Doctor's appeal)? I am probably getting a trifle greedy in asking this of you, but a million thanks nonetheless. Robertson-Glasgow 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it slipped my mind to add the page numbers, they are (in order of the quotes above): p946, pp371-372, p55 and p57. There is a little further from Moody (p.372 of Australian Cricket: The Game and the Players):

“

Now Boyle's perinacious accuracy was rewarded," Moody wrote in his Australian Cricket and Cricketers. "Off the first ball of his over Barnes was caught off the glove by Murdoch at point. Edmund Peate, last man in, swished the first ball to lef for two, flukily played the next one, tried to hit the last ball of the over, but missed, and it bowled him. The game was won by seven runs.

”

The bibliography of this book lists a couple of books by Moody if you would be so interested as to search for them: Australian Cricket and Cricketers (Adelaide, 1894) and Cricket Album of Noted Australian Cricketers (Adelaide, 1905).

No quote from Hornby about Studd, but there is this from E.Peate (p372 again):

“

When Peate was criticised for not giving his partner C.T.Studd a chance to score the runs, he said, "Mr Studd was so nervous I did not feel I could trust him to score the runs."

”

I think the alleged death in the crowd and the man chewing through his umbrella are mentioned in our article, but my book also says that "the scorer's hand trembled so that he wrote Peate's name as "Geese"" (p372), if that's of any interest at all.

Both books mention the contentious run out:

AC:Game and Players (p.371):

“

When play resumed after lunch Murdoch scored a single to the legside, and Jones grounded his bat inside the crease and then went back along the pitch to pat down a bump. W.G. Grace at once broke down the wicket and Jones was given out. Grace was within his rights, but his lack of sportsmanship annoyed the Australians, who were all out for 122.

”

(p. 560):

“

Jones is remembered for his unusual dismissal at The Oval in 1882 in the Test that began the Ashes legend. He was a fairly innocent 21-year-old, batting well with Billy Murdoch, who took a single to leg. After the run had been completed Jones went down the pitch to pat down a divot and the wily W.G.Grace threw down his stumps. Umpire Robert Thoms ruled him run out, a decision which intensified the Australians' desire to win the match.

”

200 Seasons (p 55):

“

While he [Murdoch] was batting with Sam Jones, Murdoch turned a ball, and the players ran through for one. Then Jones wandered out of his crease thinking the ball was dead, and W.G. promptly took of the bails and appealed. Umpire Thoms said: 'As you claim it, Sir! Out!' Murdoch protested – but to no avail. The Australian dressing room was incensed at this bit of 'sport', and it fired their will to win.

”

Hope that's helpful. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot thank you enough, and I am more than willing to return the favour if needs be; my cricket library is almost 700-books strong, so I should think that, if there is anything about which you would like to know, I would be able to help you. Nevertheless, many thanks once again, sir. Robertson-Glasgow 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altham

Many thanks for your helpful contributions. JH (talk page) 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WG

His family called him "Gilby"

Is this true ? There was a famous occasion when Martha Grace admonished him after he got out, "Willie, Willie, haven't I told you over and over how to play that stroke ?". Tintin 15:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a fact tag just in case you take too long to come back. Feel free to remove it if you are certain about it. Tintin 16:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks okay now. Tintin 14:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hit for six

CK Nayudu apparently hit a 150 yard six in the Madras Presidency Match in 1921. Does Hit for Six say anything about it, specifically, does Brodribb agree with the distance ? Tintin 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My source says that the hit was easily above 150 yards from the batting crease. So I'll have to go with that even if it may not be entirely accurate. Tintin 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Those damned dots"

As somebody once famously said. I believe that it's usual in American English to put full stops in abbreviations such as "MCG", but it's not usual in British English. Personally, I think that "MCG" looks much better than "M.C.G.", but YMMV (or Y.M.M.V.). :) JH (talk page) 09:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JH (talk page) 12:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Griffith (cricketer)

Following our discussion on rsc, the first draft of the article is now up. Please feel free to expand it with anything you feel is appropriate. JH (talk page) 19:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look at it. JH (talk page) 08:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it now. Thanks for your hard work. It's now a very substantial article. A few points:

Do we have a more reliable source for the "Lion Hitter" apellation than the seemingly not altogether reliable memory of one man?
You must have a second source for the 1861-2 paragraph, as there's now more there than seemed to be in the one that I unearthed. That second source ought to be cited.
After both of our efforts at chopping the article about, I'm not sure that all the footnotes are still in the right place in the text. (BTW, I think that the Wiki convention is that they should only be placed at the end of a paragraph, not in the middle of one.One solution might be to break the text into smaller paragraphs.)
You're a romanticist in the Cardus tradition, :) but that doesn't always sit easily in an encyclopaedia article. I've toned down or snipped a few of the more florid bits, but it's still a bit POV in places.

JH (talk page) 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good luck with the exams! JH (talk page) 12:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WG

RG, just adding a tag won't help. Only admins can protect or semiprotect a page and they have an extra button (invisible to ordinary editors) for that. The tag is added just as a notice. Leave a note in WT:CRIC if you want to protect it. Tintin 06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin is correct. I've given it a 14 day semi-protection (established users only can now edit it) to see if things calm down a bit. —Moondyne 10:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Barker

He now has an article. :) JH (talk page) 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JH (talk page) 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many would dub that a preposterous understatement." That doesn't seem very encyclopaedic in tone, especially the "preposterous". And the "many would dub" might be called "weasel words" by the unsympathetic. JH (talk page) 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGB

Do you have the Don Bradman and Alan Kippax pages on your watchlist ? They have undergone substantial changes in the recent past (and Bradman has spawned off half a dozen offsprings) which you should be interested in. Tintin 08:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual stuff. The content, language, whether anything significant is missing etc. DGB is under peer review and Kippax, FAC. Tintin 12:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Good work you're doing around cricket articles - glad to have you. No doubt you got your name because you're really "RC". (that joke is (c) Dweller, 2007). Wondered if you'd like to take a look at the thread at WT:CRIC headed "Cricket". --Dweller 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... I just mean I'll create an exact copy of it at somewhere like User:Dweller/Cricket and we can work on it there... before moving it back into the "mainspace" at Cricket. Tintin was worried about reworking such an important article while it's "live". --Dweller 23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kortright

I had understood that the 6 byes story was apochryphal. His last f-c game was in 1907, and I think at that date for a six the ball still had to be hit (or not hit!) out of the ground. JH (talk page) 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could say something like "It has been claimed, probably apochryphally,...". It would be nice to be able to cite somewhere where the story is recounted, though. As for the beamer story, I hadn't heard that one. I find it hard to believe that a beamer passing the batsman at head high, or even a bit higher, could reach the stands without bouncing. JH (talk page) 09:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:Johnlp: There is a citation for the Wallingford incident on page 15 of a 1983 book called The Cricketer Book of Cricket Disasters and Bizarre Records, edited by Christopher Martin-Jenkins and published by Century Publishing (ISBN 07126 0191 0). I have to say that I don't believe it's possible, but on the basis that Wikipedia is about things that are verifiable, not necessarily things that are true... JH (talk page) 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A History of Cricket

I decided that it was high time that I had this on my bookshelves, so have just bought both volumes of the 1962 edition. I've only had time for a quick skim so far, but confess myself a little disappointed. Altham doesn't strike me as that good a writer. Also, it might have been more accurate to call it "A History of English Cricket". There seems to be little about events in other countries. And even within England, there seem to be some surprising omissions. Nothing on London County, apparently, or on Philadelphia's tours of England. Bart King isn't even mentioned, if the index is to be believed. JH (talk page) 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that my ignorance of Harry East is total. I'll be interested to hear anything that you can unearth about him. JH (talk page) 09:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely quote. Thanks! JH (talk page) 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Chappell

Hello crusoe, I have just nominated this article for FA, I would appreciate any comments you have. Cheers Phanto282 09:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Freeman

Sometimes it can be surprisingly difficult to tell if a player already has an article, because there are so many possble permutations: Fred Bloggs, F Bloggs, F.Bloggs, F. Bloggs, Fred Bloggs (cricketer) etc. I tend to check under the most likely Categories to see if the player appears there. JH (talk page) 09:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Craig (The Surrey Poet)

I thought that you might be interested in what I've just managed to dig up in connection with this article. The pre-WW1 writer E.W. Hornung, who wrote the well-known books about Raffles, the gentleman-burglar and fine cricketer, set a chapter of one of them at Lord's, and the text is available online. The link in the second entry in the Notes section of the Craig aricle will take you to it. And should you want to download and read the whole novel, it's available on Project Gutenberg JH (talk page) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced additions

Wikipedia relies on information that can be verified and prohibits original research and editors' opinions. See WP:V and WP:OR. If you add new material to articles, please add references showing the source where you got the information. See WP:RS. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in particular for which you need a reference? Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I have deleted the unreferenced new material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored your contribution and provided a link to an Internet source for the material. Thanks for your contributions and best wishes with your editing. :) Cleo123 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Isaac Hodgson

I confess to never having heard of him. For the period, his average of 15.8 strikes me as pretty mediocre. For every generation of players, there's always been some old guy to say that the previous generation was better, so I wouldn't be inclined to take too much notice of the Yorkshire Post. JH (talk page) 09:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that the standard of the teams that the All-England XI faced was not always very high. There were a lot of cheap wickets to be had, as Clarke's own remarkable figures indicvate. Anyway, to summarise: you reckon that Hodgson was better thajn Peate was better than Peel was better than Rhodes. :) JH (talk page) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misunderstanding. I had originslly missed your link to East's article, but have now read the piece. There's a lot of interesting stuff there, though I can't say that I much care for East's writing style. It's interesting that Clarke didn't feel that Hodgson's merits as a bowler outweighed his deficiencies as batsman and fielder. My feeling is that if Hodgson had really been as good a bowler as claimed, Clarke would have wanted him playing for his own side. JH (talk page) 10:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've already done some work on the article. His dates of birth and death ought to be in, and the stuff about the other Isaac Hodgson ought to be hived off into a seoarate article, with just a standard dab message at the start of the xcricketer's article. As to East's prose, he strikes me as striving too obviously to mimic Cardus, and to never use a short word if he can find a long one. JH (talk page) 10:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some relevant categories and hived off the other Isaac Hodgson. At the start of the cricketer's article I've put in a dablink of the sort that I mentioned. (dab = disambiguation) JH (talk page) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Laker

of whom greybeards said, "You can hear the ball bounce as he lets it go." Did you really mean to put "bounce"? It doesn't seem to make much sense in the context of the bowler releasing the ball. JH (talk page) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cut 'n' pasted that quote from the obit penned by John Arlott. It could only have meant "buzz". I'm off to change it now. Cheers, Crusoe (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranji Hordern

According to Palmer's Wiki article, he bowled off-breaks rather than leg-breaks. It seems that Cooper did bowl leg-breaks. What I think one could say about Hordern, is that he was the first successful Australian googly bowler. JH (talk page) 08:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about the methods of many early bowlers. Note that I said above that Hordern was the first successful Australian googly bowler, not the first successful leggie. Anyone prior to Bosanquet was presumably not bowling the googly. As an aside, I think it was the improvement in pitches from about the 1890s onwards that made wrist-spinners more common. When pitches were poor, finger-spinners would be at least as penetrative as wrist-spinners, with the advantage of generally being more economical. JH (talk page) 09:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have mentioned that before. However I suspect that it's more likely that Palmer mixed wrist-spun leggies with finger-spun offies. If batsmen weren't then in the habit of watching the bowler's hand, this may have had a similar impact to a mix of leg-breaks and googlies. JH (talk page) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer and Bosanquet were playing only some 20 years apart, which isn't a lot. Lots of people must have seen both. Did nobody apart from Hawke suggest that Bosanquet hadn't done anything new? People like Grace and Murdoch, for instance, who probably played with/against both? And there seem to have been no doubts in Australia, where they Christened the googly the Bosie rather than the Joey. Surely they would have claimed it for one of their own if at all feasible? It would be a bit like people today forgetting that Sarfraz had pioneered reverse swing twenty years ago or so. JH (talk page) 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you find my position annoying, but I think you need more than Lord Hawke's opinion to establish your case. It just doesn't seem plausible to me that no-one apart from Hawke would have said that Bosanquet hadn't originated the googly if Palmer had done so not that many years before. JH (talk page) 07:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) JH (talk page) 09:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dennis

Hello R-G. I've just come across this article via the 1800 season review. It is very good and provides a lot of information but there no references. Could you please provide external sources and a bibliography? Or some of the dreaded inline citations that this site now demands?

Also, who was JF Sutton and what books did he write?

Regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found Sutton via Google and it seems he is noted for one book in particular which is Nottingham Cricket Matches from 1771 to 1853, published in 1853. I can't find the name of the publisher, however, though it might be on the Notts CCC site which is down at the moment. If you quote Sutton in other articles, could you please make a full reference to this book. I'll add it to Dennis. Thanks again. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added Sutton's cricket book to List of works by cricket historians and writers. His entry is only half a dozen or so below your namesake! Regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the only work I have by A-C is his account of 1742 - 1751 in "Cricket magazine". I haven't reached the 19th century yet in my collection! Regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Barratt

I don't know if you've seen the article on Ted Barratt which I've just written. Given the period and that he was a slow left-arm bowler, I thought that it might interest you. JH (talk page) 18:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) JH (talk page) 09:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your excellent additions. JH (talk page) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that between us we have now have a reasonably complete portrait of Barratt. ...in fact, why not draw my attention to them all? Well, there's a complete list on my User page. Francis Lacey and Frederick Toone are good candidates for expansion. JH (talk page) 08:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Pistorius: Primary school

Hi, you recently edited "Oscar Pistorius" to add that he attended Constantia Kloof Primary School. Do you have a reference to a published source for this? Otherwise, the information may have to be removed for being unreferenced, which would be a pity. If you'd like to discuss the matter further, let's do so on the article's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not have any reference for Oscar's attending CKPS, I know for a fact that he did, because I went there with him. His recollections, alas, are not as fond as mine: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2005/04/27/sophil27.xml. Please respond back at my talk page. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that was the case. Unfortunately, the fact that you went to school with him is not independently verifiable. Can you cite a source in another language (e.g., Afrikaans) , or a printed source? An old school annual or magazine is better than nothing. Also, any chance of an old photograph of Pistorius as a child that you could license to Wikipedia? :-) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robertson-Glasgow. You have new messages at Talk:Oscar Pistorius.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Hall

Glasgow-bhai, can you please add a citation for this. Tintin 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Hawke comment that the Yorkshire team of the time had ten drunks and a church parson, but no hint that there were no parsons before him. Tintin 02:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baconian theory article

I'd like to congratulate you for your excellent recent edits to this article. I originated the article and even wrote a study http://barryispuzzled.com/shakpuzz.pdf which I've been trying to get recognised and published. Alas, current prejudice about Mr Shakspere of Straford prevails! It's a delight for me to see a break in my isolation and meet a kindred spirit in these matters. Please get in touch at puzzledbarry"at"yahoo.co.uk and tell me something about yourself. Regards. (Puzzle Master (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, here's a better email address puzzledbarry"at"ntlworld.com because I've lost many e-mails at the yahoo address in the spam filter. Look forward to hearing from you. (Puzzle Master (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Did you get to complete The Shakespeare Puzzle? (Puzzle Master (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Cosmological argument

Hey, Robertson-Glasgow! I'd like to thank you for the splendid edits you made to the article mentioned above. I think we've cleaned up the article quite well. Cheers! 12.208.25.100 (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was about to say the same to you. Very well done, sir. Best, Crusoe (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Poore

I'm glad tro see that you've expanded his article. It was something I'd been meaning to do myself, but now I can take it off my "to do" list. A couple of nit-picks. A citation would be good for your contention that Poore's average in 1899 was not as meitorious as Sutcliffe's in whenever it was. "During this period, Poore never failed, his lowest score being 11 against Essex..." A score of eleven sounds like a failure to me. :) JH (talk page) 08:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to help, but I am not, alack, the begetter of that contentious edit. Best, Crusoe (Talk) 08:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll take matters into my own hands. :) JH (talk page) 08:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on African nationalism

Hello. I just came across the article on African nationalism, and I noticed that you are its principal author. First, let me say that I appreciate the effort that you have put into your contributions. Nevertheless, the fact that none of them are referenced (and and that there are no sources for the entire article) is a significant problem. Please review Wikipedia's policies on providing reliable and verifiable sources for all contributions, as well as the policy on original research. If you are able to provide sources that are in keeping with these policies to support your contributions, please do so as soon as possible to prevent those contributions from being removed. – SJL 05:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have not touched the article in almost a year — I was immersed in a now-forgotten course on the subject matter at the time —, I am finding it difficult to reacquaint myself with my thinking and source any of my claims. A spot of concerted googling on the part of someone who genuinely cares about the entry, however, ought to suffice. While its quality leaves much to be desired, it is impressively exhaustive and would be a pity to lose. I shall do what I can for the nonce. Crusoe (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am concerned, though, by your suggestion that someone else should find sources for this information. Looking at this page I can see that this is at least the third time that other editors have requested that you source your contributions, and each time you have responded in a way that suggests that you do not take this issue seriously. Please note that while Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, each editor is responsible for the verifiability and sourcing of their own contributions. Whenever you add information without citations, you are breaching the norms of the community and either (a) creating more work for others (which, assuming you've done the research yourself, could have been easily avoided through proper documentation in the first place); or (b) wasting your own time, because the unsourced contributions will eventually be removed. As I said before, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your current approach to editing is undermining the value of your contributions. – SJL 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put words in my mouth: I said that I would do what I could, not that someone else should do it for me; the problem is that I am unlikely to do it any better than someone else.

While I take full responsibility for my failure to keep to this site's asphyxiating policies, and am sorry for whatever bother they may have caused you, I find your tone needlessly patronising and presumptuous, especially as regards my "current" approach: we are, after all, hashing out one-year-old edits here. A mite of understanding would not be inapposite.

Kindest, Crusoe (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being presumptuous. You have been contacted about this issue three other times in the past five months: March 2008; May 2008; and again in May 2008. I have now also looked into some of your other major edits, such as those made to the article on South Africa under apartheid. They are all completely unsourced: for example, 1; 2;3 and 4.

How is anyone to judge the quality of these contributions? The purpose of Wikipedia's "asphyxiating policies" is not to make your life difficult, but instead to address the real problems of verifiability and authority. In a traditional published work, the reader can judge the likelihood that the information presented to them is accurate based on the references provided and the authority of its author or publisher. Without authority to support it, Wikipedia relies exclusively on the thorough documentation of sources and, without that, it is no more useful than a personal blog. I do not mean to appear patronizing, but it seems necessary to clarify these issues for you, and I recommend that you review WP:CITE before making any further contributions. – SJL 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being presumptuous. You have been contacted about this issue three other times in the past five months

All of three times in five months, eh? I have made almost 1,000 edits in that time.

May 2008

Nothing in that article was so remarkable, unverifiable or controversial as to require referencing. It was mandatory rather than necessary.

May 2008

Few are the referenced assertions about where a subject was educated that I have seen on Wikipedia.

I have now also looked into some of your other major edits,

Surely you have better things to do than to police and investigate me?

such as those made to the article on South Africa under apartheid.

Those edits, which it is rather misleading to present as four when they are to every intent and purpose one (happening as they did over two days), are well nigh as old as those on African nationalism.

I do not mean to appear patronizing, but it seems necessary to clarify these issues for you

Absolutely shameless. Do not expect my help on the initial subject of contention now, nor indeed a response to whatever snide offal you choose to spout next.

Unkindest, Crusoe (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this exchange again, I see that I was too hard on you, and I apologize. I am an academic, and I find it frustrating when I see unattributed contributions, but you have the right to participate however you see fit, and I did not mean to lecture you. The article in question came to my attention because I am interested in improving the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of nationalism and related subjects, and I hope that in the future you will reconsider your decision and further contribute to that article. – SJL 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's big of you. Apology accepted and reciprocated. Crusoe (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baconian article

You will be delighted to know that Baconian theory has now attained GA (good article status)! It's currently protected, however, because a certain editor with a hidden agenda has taken it upon himself to try (unsuccessfully) to add Oxfordian links and slants. PuzzleMaster (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great news and well deserved. Thanks for letting me know. How do you feel about a concerted push for higher honours? Crusoe (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thewlises

The name was vaguely familiar, but I didn't know - or had forgotten - that there were two of them. At one time I was considering writing an article about Lascelles Hall, but I couldn't find enough good material. Whoever tagged Junior's article was clearly ignorant of the Sport notability guideline. The article establishes his notability as being a f-c cricketer and is referenced. In Senior's article, you use the word "enchiridion". It's not a good idea to use a word that 99% of your readers - including me - are likely to be unfamiliar with, and I suggest replacing it. JH (talk page) 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Peate

Hi, Crusoe. Thanks for your kind words, and your question's easy to answer. I started an article on The Sporting Times and worked up a section of it on the 1882 reports of the death of English cricket. After linking Peate in "ITS END WAS PEATE", I thought a little more at Ted Peate was justified. Regards, Xn4 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR listing

History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wilde

Unfortunately someone has done a Speedy Deletion of your article on Wilde, on the grounds that it did not establish his notability. See User talk:Sandstein#Simon Wilde for my raising the matter with him. JH (talk page) 18:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Still, isn't the standard protocol to inform the creator of an article of its failure to establish notability before deleting it?" I would have thought so. Merry Christmas! JH (talk page) 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

The standard of your work here deserves commendation! ;) (Isnotwen (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Looking through the log of Baconian theory I see that you have contributed a substantial rewrite. There is an editor who wants to place Oxfordian references in this article, a dispute which is being discussed here Talk:Baconian theory. Do you have a view? Best. Isnotwen (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2009 Zimbabwean cholera outbreak

You contributed to the above article and I would appreciate any comments you might have on improving it. Thanks, Babakathy (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on Zimbabwe

The World Health Organization have a daily report on cholera deaths and infections here. If you click on the link under "Daily Cholera Updates", you'll be able to download a pdf file outlining details. In many cases this report will occur before media outlets begin reporting it. I've done the latest one (10th February, 3,501 deaths) but this won't be a regular thing for me - so if you're in the mood to adjust the article daily or once every couple of days, the information is there for us to use. Thanks for your work on the article BTW. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Losev

Looks like you wanted to create Lev Losev. I just did - please add. -- Y not? 15:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan McCullough

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Susan McCullough. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Library

I'll leave telling Tintin about your discoveries to you (assuming you wish to do so). That seems the right way of doing things. Cheers. JH (talk page) 08:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mailed you. Tintin 08:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are, as usual, right, John. I'll get back to Tintin before week's end. Kindest, Crusoe (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Robertson-Glasgow! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Nosimo Balindlela - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Gill Rennie - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Brian Stoddart - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Cyril Mitchley - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Richard Ruppel - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Joel J. Kupperman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Coal (poem)

The article Coal (poem) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of general information regarding an article with few google hits to support it's significance.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -Cam^T^|C 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alick Mackenzie

Hi Robertson-Glasgow.

I note that you have an interest in Alick Mackenzie. I am a relation of Alick, he was an uncle of my paternal grandmother and we have quite a bit of information on him and his cricket career for New South Wales. I would be interested in exchanging information on him if you are keen.

Regards, James.

Be happy to, James. Apologies for the lay-off. If you'd be good enough to mail me at rodney.ulyate@gmail.com, I'll send you what I have and dredge around for more. Kindest, Crusoe (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Lockwood move

I saw that you moved the page Lockwood (Wuthering Heights), and have left a message on the talk page for that article, and am wondering about your reasoning for the current title. --Davemnt (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youthful naivete. Feel free to restore it. Crusoe (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Vázquez Carrizosa

Hey Robertson-Glasgow, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article Alfredo Vázquez Carrizosa in the New Articles list-- However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: the article does not contain enough in-line citations, and so doesn't follow Wikipedia style guidelines. It's nice to see you editing!Jipinghe (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Robertson-Glasgow! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Small Cape Town Wiki meet up

Thought you might be interested to know that a small group of the South African Wikipedians will be meeting at the Foresters Arms, Newlands Avenue, Newlands, Cape Town on the 15 December 2011 from 2pm - 5pm. Please feel free to join us.--Discott (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badger

Hi there, i really appreciate your additions to south african laws, including that of citizens/persons/etc. I'm part of a community that is trying to understand these concept a little better, and would appreciate your knowledgeable insight on this, and similar matters. Please see http://www.thinkfreesa.com/ , i think you need to register for free, and you could join in our discussions to make clearer the labyrinth of statutes over us. Thanks kindly! David (vigil) - at thinkfreesa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.vigilant (talk • contribs) 11:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unqualified, I'm afraid, to be dealing out legal advice. But best of luck to you. Crusoe (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minister of Police v Rabie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Legal interpretation in South Africa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Defence, Social engineering, Fairness, Rule, National government, Ordinance and Amend

Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Attorney

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting in touch.

Mr. Robertson-Glasgow,

I'm trying to figure out all this wikipedia thing, and I can't really fgure out how to get in touch with you. Could you send me an e-mail to freebird-1234@hotmail.com.

Kind regards,

James Kent

JamesRKent (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for your contributions to South African environmental law! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I could do with one, in this weather. Best, Crusoe (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South African law of lease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hiring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited S v Maki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dagga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Environmental Barnstar
		Thanks for your contributions to South African environmental law! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South African labour law

You're doing some great work on this page. Do you know how to use drop-down case/statute templates? It's pretty easy to do, and self explanatory - have a look at the code here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Clist_employment_contract&action=edit

It fits up to twenty sources, but I think ten is a good norm for each section. To put into an article, you use these brackets {{ }} and just put in the template name. I've been naming UK templates with "Clist" at the start (for "case list"), and US templates with "Slist" (for "source"). Maybe you could call SA ones "SAlist"? I expect you've come across UK labour law and US labor law. Keep up the great stuff. Wik idea 06:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

You appear to be creating a number of poorly referenced, or indeed unreferenced, articles about South African law, many of which appear to be full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, including:

Pillay v Nagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gavin v Kavin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ex Parte Meier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please ensure future articles are not so poor. Giant Snowman 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask much a similar question to the last one on your talk page, about your commentary on some recent edits of my own—"You appear to be creating a number of poorly referenced, or indeed unreferenced, articles about Scottish law"—and to draw your attention to the fact that each of the articles you cite refers explicitly to the law of South Africa. Happy to help. Crusoe (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nation clarified (distracted by your user name, I guess) - but the point still stands. Do you have an explanation for these kind of edits? Giant Snowman 10:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I owe you an explanation, but the reason these articles are so "poorly referenced" is that their subject matter is self-referential. In summarising a case, my main and best reference is, inevitably, that case. This much should be obvious. Crusoe (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem ignorant of WP:PRIMARY - "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Giant Snowman 13:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem ignorant of the meaning of the word "interpretation." It is not synonymous with "summary" or "factual exposition." Again, happy to help. Crusoe (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...but the summary is yours, and yours alone, as far as I can see. That violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Giant Snowman 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do tire of repeating myself, and I did think we had covered this ground already. To recapitulate: What I did was to summarise the primary source. Since I have a source, and since I cited that source, I cannot be said to have fallen foul of WP:OR. Since, furthermore, I have not interpreted that source, I have not fallen foul of WP:PRIMARY. (This much you seem, by your silence, to have admitted.) Finally, since a mere summary of the facts does not advance a position, I cannot be said to have fallen foul of WP:SYNTH. This scattershot procedure of yours—you throw everything in sight, in the forlorn hope that something will stick—is a wonder to behold. But life, I fear, is short. Kindly limit all future correspondence to the non-trivial. Crusoe (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you say you have "summarise[d] the primary source" but you say you did not "interprete that source" - well how on earth have you managed that? I'm also intrigued by the "silence" you accuse me of... Giant Snowman 18:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make accusations. I was referring to your silence, now broken, on the question of interpretation, which I thought I had successfully addressed. Apparently I have failed, but I really can't do any better than I have, and you show little sign of cottoning on. Sorry. Crusoe (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't apologise, I'm clearly too thick. Either that or you're simply too arrogant to accept what I'm trying to say. I'm sure it's the former, however. Giant Snowman 18:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. Crusoe (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity you flat out ignored Giant Snowmans advice. Thanks very much. ^[sarcasm] Mako001 (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Law of evidence in South Africa

Hi there,
Just a note to let you know that your recent edits here left a citation error or errors. I have fixed them. You appeared to have had two missing </ref> in your refs, and an extra <ref> ie.<ref>XXX<ref></ref> instead of <ref>XXX</ref>. You may want to check that I haven't inadvertantly combined two refs or split one into two. Suggest using the Show preview button and check for cite errors before saving. :-) 220 of ^Borg 02:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your South African law articles

A couple of things

Do not link to categories that don't exist per WP:Categorization

Do not put in WP:See also links to nonexistent articles.

Do not put in WP:See also links if the article already links to that page.

You're doing very good work. If you follow these wikipedia criteria, it will be even better. Cheers!...William 13:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

South African insurance law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Natal, Estate, Classification, Premium, Financial security, Offer, Profit and Transvaal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 18 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the South African insurance law page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

South African insurance law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mora, Unlawful, Cancellation and Stolen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

South African criminal law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bar, Diet, Crane, Exposure, Cage, Retribution, Relative, Vengeance, Blackouts and Lifesaver

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African law of sale and lease

Category:South African law of sale and lease, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 10:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Western Bank v Pretorius

I notice that you have created two nearly identical articles: Western Bank v Pretorius and Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius. I assume that they are one and the same thing and that the duplicate was created in error. I have tagged them to be merged. Let me know if this an error on my part. I would suggest that as originating author you will be most familiar with the content and be best placed to perform the merge without loss of information and make the empty article a redirect to the main article, probably Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius. Let me know if you need assistance in anyway. --Derek Andrews (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5th Wiki-meetup 4 May 2014

Hello, Wikimedia ZA would like to invite you to the 5th Cape Town Wiki-meetup for 11am, Sunday the 4th May 2014 at Truth Coffee on 36 Buitenkant Street, Cape Town. It would be great if you could join us. Please invite who ever you think might be interested.--Discott (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of R v Khan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R v Khan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Khan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Leigh Bennie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leigh Bennie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leigh Bennie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Robertson-Glasgow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Robertson-Glasgow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Piano and Drums

The article Piano and Drums has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Phil roc (c) 20:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Release, February 1990

The article Release, February 1990 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Robertson-Glasgow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Room of How To

The article The Room of How To has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable, unsourced poem

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Xaiver0510 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of S v De Oliveira for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S v De Oliveira is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S v De Oliveira until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mina ngo hlala nginje

The article Mina ngo hlala nginje has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable song.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carrim Alli

The article Carrim Alli has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable individual - bio article stub based on single event.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S v Melani

Hello. I edited on of your pages, S v Melani a in May of this year, deleting most of it for being unsourced. I have since restored the article but would like to know where you got the information and some more about the case so that the article can be better. Thank you, Ted (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of Other Forms of Slaughter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Other Forms of Slaughter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Forms of Slaughter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Charles Jarvis (cricketer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Jarvis (cricketer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Jarvis (cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Cupper52 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

TJRC (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mnyungula v Minister of Safety and Security

The article Mnyungula v Minister of Safety and Security has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not referenced. No proof of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Extra Dimension v Kruger

The article Extra Dimension v Kruger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not referenced. No proof of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Extra Dimension v Kruger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Extra Dimension v Kruger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Dimension v Kruger until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of S v Chitate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S v Chitate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S v Chitate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of R v Smith (1900) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R v Smith (1900) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Smith (1900) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Henry Petowe

The article Henry Petowe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Copyvio, copy paste from goodreads.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ex parte Barton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ex parte Barton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex parte Barton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ex parte Goldman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ex parte Goldman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex parte Goldman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ex parte Henning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ex parte Henning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex parte Henning until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex parte Alberts

The article Ex parte Alberts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up results for Wikipedia and it's mirrors, and no secondary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ex parte Van Heerden for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ex parte Van Heerden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex parte Van Heerden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex parte Harmse

The article Ex parte Harmse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex parte Slabbert

The article Ex parte Slabbert has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Miller v Janks

The article Miller v Janks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up results for passing mentions in primary sources, and no secondary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Magnum Financial Holdings v Summerly

The article Magnum Financial Holdings v Summerly has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Seems to have been copy-pasted from a textbook.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Walker v Syfret NO

The article Walker v Syfret NO has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Reads like it was copy-pasted from a textbook.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Blom v Brown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blom v Brown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blom v Brown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of UPUSA v Komming Knitting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UPUSA v Komming Knitting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPUSA v Komming Knitting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fuel Retailers Association v Motor Industry Bargaining Council

The article Fuel Retailers Association v Motor Industry Bargaining Council has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up results for Wikipedia and it's mirrors, and no secondary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Henry Petowe

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Henry Petowe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5885942.Henry_Petowe. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union v Rustenburg Transitional Council

The article Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union v Rustenburg Transitional Council has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case that fails WP:GNG. Google shows exactly nothing but Wikipedia and it's mirrors. Entire article is based on a single primary source, and reads like it was copy-pasted from a textbook.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of NUMSA v Bader Bop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NUMSA v Bader Bop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUMSA v Bader Bop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of FAWU v The Cold Chain

The article FAWU v The Cold Chain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up Wikipedia and it's mirrors and no secondary sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Billiton Aluminium v Khanyile for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Billiton Aluminium v Khanyile is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billiton Aluminium v Khanyile until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daymon Worldwide v CCMA for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daymon Worldwide v CCMA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daymon Worldwide v CCMA until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of R v Khan (South Africa) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R v Khan (South Africa) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Khan (South Africa) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of S v Melani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S v Melani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S v Melani until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anderson v Estate Anderson

The article Anderson v Estate Anderson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Garfinkle v Estate Garfinkle

The article Garfinkle v Estate Garfinkle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Barclays Bank v Anderson

The article Barclays Bank v Anderson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Dittmarn

The article Ex Parte Dittmarn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Douallier

The article Ex Parte Douallier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte McDonald

The article Ex Parte McDonald has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Naude

The article Ex Parte Naude has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Sidelsky

The article Ex Parte Sidelsky has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Henriques v Giles

The article Henriques v Giles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Van Zyl v Esterhuyse

The article Van Zyl v Esterhuyse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Botha v The Master

The article Botha v The Master has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Barrow v The Master

The article Barrow v The Master has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marais v The Master

The article Marais v The Master has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Senekal v Meyer

The article Senekal v Meyer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Lutchman

The article Ex Parte Lutchman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Macdonald v The Master

The article Macdonald v The Master has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Maurice

The article Ex Parte Maurice has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tshabalala v Tshabalala

The article Tshabalala v Tshabalala has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kidwell v The Master

The article Kidwell v The Master has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Liebenberg v The Master

The article Liebenberg v The Master has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Estate Davies

The article Ex Parte Estate Davies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kirsten v Bailey

The article Kirsten v Bailey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Spies v Smith

The article Spies v Smith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Harlow v Becker

The article Harlow v Becker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Geldenhuys v Borman

The article Geldenhuys v Borman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carelse v Estate De Vries

The article Carelse v Estate De Vries has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Volks v Robinson

The article Volks v Robinson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minister of Education v Syfrets Trust

The article Minister of Education v Syfrets Trust has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Govender v Ragavayah

The article Govender v Ragavayah has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex parte Stephens' Estate

The article Ex parte Stephens' Estate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Uthingo Management v Minister of Trade and Industry

The article Uthingo Management v Minister of Trade and Industry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Estate Orpen v Estate Atkinson

The article Estate Orpen v Estate Atkinson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Theron v Master of the High Court

The article Theron v Master of the High Court has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Danielz v De Wet

The article Danielz v De Wet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Makhanya v Minister of Finance

The article Makhanya v Minister of Finance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pillay v Nagan

The article Pillay v Nagan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Meier

The article Ex Parte Meier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Casey v The Master

The article Casey v The Master has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of L Taylor v AE Pim

The article L Taylor v AE Pim has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ex Parte Graham

The article Ex Parte Graham has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar. No indication of importance, seems to be quite WP:ROUTINE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of President of the Republic of South Africa v M&G Media

The article President of the Republic of South Africa v M&G Media has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pointless WP:FORK of the 2002 Zimbabwean presidential election article. This fork is actually worse, with less real content and worse sources than what is in the election article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joel Melamed and Hurwitz v Cleveland Estates

The article Joel Melamed and Hurwitz v Cleveland Estates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peri-Urban Areas Health Board v Munarin

The article Peri-Urban Areas Health Board v Munarin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of De Valence v Langley Fox Building Partnership (W)

The article De Valence v Langley Fox Building Partnership (W) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Langley Fox Building Partnership v De Valence

The article Langley Fox Building Partnership v De Valence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dukes v Marthinusen

The article Dukes v Marthinusen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Compass Motors Industries v Callguard

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Compass Motors Industries v Callguard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mako001 (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kondis v State Transport Authority

The article Kondis v State Transport Authority has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tarry v Ashton

The article Tarry v Ashton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius

The article Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Barclays Western Bank v Pretorius

The article Barclays Western Bank v Pretorius has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chartaprops v Silberman

The article Chartaprops v Silberman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of S v Marx for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S v Marx is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S v Marx until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of S v Western Areas Ltd

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on S v Western Areas Ltd, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Suliman

The article S v Suliman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Behrman v Regional Magistrate, Southern Transvaal

The article Behrman v Regional Magistrate, Southern Transvaal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Alexander

The article S v Alexander has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Adams (South Africa)

The article R v Adams (South Africa) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Verity-Amm

The article R v Verity-Amm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Sadeke

The article S v Sadeke has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Cooper

The article S v Cooper has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Whitehead

The article S v Whitehead has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Naidoo

The article S v Naidoo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Mampa

The article S v Mampa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Pakane

The article S v Pakane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Longdistance (Natal)

The article S v Longdistance (Natal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Moloto

The article S v Moloto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Benjamin

The article S v Benjamin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Prins

The article S v Prins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Grobler

The article S v Grobler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Hendrix

The article S v Hendrix has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Mlonyeni

The article S v Mlonyeni has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Van Vuuren

The article S v Van Vuuren has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Mpetha

The article S v Mpetha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Dlamini

The article S v Dlamini has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Shiburi

The article S v Shiburi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Du Toit v DPP

The article Du Toit v DPP has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shabalala v Attorney-General, Transvaal

The article Shabalala v Attorney-General, Transvaal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Phato v Attorney-General

The article Phato v Attorney-General has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Steyn

The article R v Steyn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Tandwa

The article S v Tandwa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Mvelase

The article S v Mvelase has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Chabedi

The article S v Chabedi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Ndlovu

The article S v Ndlovu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Nkondo

The article S v Nkondo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Sikhipha

The article S v Sikhipha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Morrison

The article S v Morrison has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Vermaas

The article S v Vermaas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Swanepoel

The article S v Swanepoel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ehrlich v CEO, Legal Aid Board

The article Ehrlich v CEO, Legal Aid Board has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hlantlalala v Dyanti

The article Hlantlalala v Dyanti has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai

The article Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Magajane v Chairperson, North West Gambling Board

The article Magajane v Chairperson, North West Gambling Board has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nel v Deputy Commissioner of Police, Grahamstown

The article Nel v Deputy Commissioner of Police, Grahamstown has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Toich v Magistrate, Riversdale

The article Toich v Magistrate, Riversdale has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minister of Safety & Security v Xaba

The article Minister of Safety & Security v Xaba has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Young v Minister of Safety & Security

The article Young v Minister of Safety & Security has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Beheermaatschappij Helling I NV v Magistrate, Cape Town

The article Beheermaatschappij Helling I NV v Magistrate, Cape Town has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joy Mining Machinery v NUMSA

The article Joy Mining Machinery v NUMSA has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joy Mining Machinery v NUMSA

The article Joy Mining Machinery v NUMSA has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brown v Mbhense

The article Brown v Mbhense has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lubbe v Volkskas

The article Lubbe v Volkskas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Genna-Wae Properties v Medico-Tronics

The article Genna-Wae Properties v Medico-Tronics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Possible copyvio. Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kessoopersadh v Essop

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kessoopersadh v Essop, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hoffmann v South African Airways

The article Hoffmann v South African Airways has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on a single source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hitzeroth v Brooks

The article Hitzeroth v Brooks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on a single source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board

The article Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on a single source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of S v Bernardus

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on S v Bernardus, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of S v D

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on S v D, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of S v Ingram

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on S v Ingram, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of S v Pietersen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on S v Pietersen, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Maki

The article S v Maki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Possible copyvio. Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of R v K

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on R v K requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of R v Du Plessis

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on R v Du Plessis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Minister of Health v New Clicks

A tag has been placed on Minister of Health v New Clicks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G12 - Consists mostly of "quotations", these are so extensive that they seem more like copyright violations than quotations, and make up the backbone of the articles content.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of R v Loubser for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R v Loubser is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Loubser until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Veldman v DPP, Witwatersrand

The article Veldman v DPP, Witwatersrand has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of B v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans

The article B v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Jackson

The article S v Jackson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Patel

The article R v Patel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Pretorius

The article S v Pretorius has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Mtewtwa

The article S v Mtewtwa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minister of Health v New Clicks: in re Application for Declaratory Relief

The article Minister of Health v New Clicks: in re Application for Declaratory Relief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eastern Cape v Contract Props

The article Eastern Cape v Contract Props has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of SA Bus and Taxi Association v Cape of Good Hope Bank

The article SA Bus and Taxi Association v Cape of Good Hope Bank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Woods v Walters

The article Woods v Walters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Motomane

The article R v Motomane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Counter

The article S v Counter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Mubila

The article R v Mubila has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Tembani (2006)

The article S v Tembani (2006) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is unsourced and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Tembani (1998)

The article S v Tembani (1998) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane

The article Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lipschitz v Wolpert and Abrahams

The article Lipschitz v Wolpert and Abrahams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mokoena v Administrator, Transvaal

The article Mokoena v Administrator, Transvaal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pressma Services v Schuttler

The article Pressma Services v Schuttler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Van Eeden v Minister of Safety & Security

The article Van Eeden v Minister of Safety & Security has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minister of Safety & Security v Van Duivenboden

The article Minister of Safety & Security v Van Duivenboden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Van As

The article S v Van As has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minister of Safety & Security v Hamilton

The article Minister of Safety & Security v Hamilton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carmichele v Minister of Safety & Security

The article Carmichele v Minister of Safety & Security has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Russell

The article S v Russell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minister of Law & Order v Kadir

The article Minister of Law & Order v Kadir has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minister of Police v Ewels

The article Minister of Police v Ewels has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Chretien

The article S v Chretien has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Mkize

The article R v Mkize has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Schoonwinkel

The article R v Schoonwinkel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Lavhengwa

The article S v Lavhengwa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Korsten

The article R v Korsten has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jetha v R

The article Jetha v R has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Reddy v Siemens

The article Reddy v Siemens has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Automotive Tooling Systems v Wilkens

The article Automotive Tooling Systems v Wilkens has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Crouch Marketing v Du Plessis

The article David Crouch Marketing v Du Plessis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wolfaardt v Fedlife Assurance

The article Wolfaardt v Fedlife Assurance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wallach v Lew Geffen Estates

The article Wallach v Lew Geffen Estates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S v Western Areas Ltd

The article S v Western Areas Ltd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This South African criminal case has been unsourced since it was created in 2013. I did some quick searches and could not find any sources. There is no indication it is a notable case.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ GB fan 10:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jordaan v Verwey

The article Jordaan v Verwey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rubin v Botha

The article Rubin v Botha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Totoyi v Ncuka

The article Totoyi v Ncuka has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sweets from Heaven v Ster Kinekor

The article Sweets from Heaven v Ster Kinekor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sishen Hotel v Suid-Afrikaanse Yster en Staal Industriële Korporasie

The article Sishen Hotel v Suid-Afrikaanse Yster en Staal Industriële Korporasie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Business Aviation Corporation v Rand Airport Holdings

The article Business Aviation Corporation v Rand Airport Holdings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Drymiotis v Du Toit

The article Drymiotis v Du Toit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Southernport Developments v Transnet

The article Southernport Developments v Transnet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of De Jager v Sisana

The article De Jager v Sisana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Benlou Properties v Vector Graphics

The article Benlou Properties v Vector Graphics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transkei Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion

Category:Transkei Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mako001 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ntshiqa v Andreas Supermarket

The article Ntshiqa v Andreas Supermarket has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pete's Warehousing v Bowsink Investments

The article Pete's Warehousing v Bowsink Investments has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mutual Construction Co v Komati Dam Joint Venture

The article Mutual Construction Co v Komati Dam Joint Venture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Shelembe

The article R v Shelembe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jaftha v Schoeman

The article Jaftha v Schoeman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar. It is also a combination of two topics together, since there probably wouldn't be enough to write about on their own.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hlatshwayo v Hein

The article Hlatshwayo v Hein has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based on primary sources only and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Saambou v Friedman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Saambou v Friedman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mako001 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Helen Makhuba

The article Helen Makhuba has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mako001 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Gunda

The article John Gunda has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced, highly negative BLP, should be speedily deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mako001 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gafin v Kavin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gafin v Kavin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gafin v Kavin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mako001 (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Murder of Carrim Alli

The article Murder of Carrim Alli has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

article lacks information and sourcing, is not relevant enough for wikipedia page to exist

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murder of Carrim Alli for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Carrim Alli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Carrim Alli until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]