Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osbourne judgment

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep/rename. W.marsh 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osbourne judgment

Osbourne judgment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

article could be better incorporated elsewhere Berk2 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• neutral the article suggests that this is a notable ruling, but there are no sources. Google returns a whack-load of hits from various wikis, but nothing suggesting that this is commonly referred to by reliable sources. Article is of poor quality. Pete.Hurd 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is Osborne judgment.

osbourne.judgment -wikipedia = 9 results

osbourne.judgement -wikipedia = 41 results

osborne.judgment -wikipedia = 286 results

osborne.judgement -wikipedia = 408 results

which sounds about right for an obscure century-old court ruling to me. There are 600 Google Books results for osborne.judgment and a hundred more if you add the "e". It was only in effect for four years, but led to the legislation that provided a crucial turning point in British democratic institutions. --Dhartung | Talk 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per Dhartung. The only move I could see would be to Trade Union Act of 1913, but I could see both becoming full articles, and don't support such a move. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:13, 16 May 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.