Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkell v. Pressdram
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Private Eye. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arkell v. Pressdram
I am really really really reluctant to list this and have been watching it for a couple of months hoping someone references it, since I'd really like it to be true. However some very heavy searching has brought up no attribution at all - nothing from either party involved, a legitimate publication or law journal etc. Although (leaving out Wikipedia & answers.com) Google brings up 893 hits, as far as I can tell every single one either has as its attribution a link back to this article or has no attribution at all. - Iridescenti 20:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but investigate: If it's a commonly used legal phrase, we should have a short article on it, even if the content of the article were to be "the phrase originates in a myth or urban legend about the satirical magazine...." Of course, the story will be better if it turns out to be true; I will poke around for anything further I can find. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- In defence (or is it defense?) of this article, the magazine itself makes the claim that it is true. Since no action was ever filed, no official record was made. The only records would exist at Goodman Derrick and/or Private Eye. The main, and probably only, mention in print that would support this article is in the introduction to "The Life and Times of Private Eye", a large format soft cover compilation of articles from the first ten years of the magazine. Amazon lists the publication date as October 25th 1971, which is consistent with my memory of the time. The location of the copy I once owned is, alas, unknown. Djdaedalus 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Private Eye. It's a cute story but there are practically zarro results anywhere. Not a notable case or phrase, just a bit of lore associated with the magazine. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The notability is not the supposedly famous wording, but its subsequent use. We have no documentation for that. This is the sort of thing one would expect to find in Google, so I cannot see keeping the article. It would be best merged, DGG 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge works for me, bearing in mind that the PE article is already over-length. Djdaedalus 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge works, and if anyone ever finds an appropriate source then it could come out by itself. Not on p 94, though. --AndrewHowse 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Private Eye#Litigation. The information already exists there in a shorter format, so there is no need to merge any content. I am not opposed to proper recreation in the future if sources can be found. -- Black Falcon 22:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
