Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex parte Henning

: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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Ex parte Henning}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex parte Henning}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:Ex parte Henning}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request the article's undeletion]. ✗plicit 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

=[[:Ex parte Henning]]=

:{{la|1=Ex parte Henning}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Ex parte Henning}})

Legal case that fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only turns up WP and it's mirrors. Mako001 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The only source cited is the legal decision itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (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.