Talk:Companion rule (Australian Criminal law)

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2023. The result of the discussion was merge.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Companion rule (Australian Criminal law) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Notability

The companion rule is mentioned explicitly in multiple academic articles, including some linked as references within the article; and also Australian High Court judgements. Because of this, it meets the notability threshold. On this basis I am removing the notability tag. Jack4576 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Companion rule page

Hello User:MaxnaCarta, I may need your assistance here as it appears User:JML1148 has escalated his personal dispute with me into targeting Australian law articles. As the other main AusLaw contributor your expertise may be warranted here. Jack4576 (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is likely notable @Jack4576 but it’s really important to actually have the sources in the bibliography. I only see two and they don’t seem to deal with this topic in detail. I have noticed that some of your articles while absolutely on a notable topic (ie, a high court case is almost always notable), you can sometimes lean on primary sources too much. Ie, in a statute or case law we need 2-3 secondary sources as a bare minimum to avoid things getting target for deletion. Also be wary of accusing another editor of “targeting” articles as part of a dispute. Until proven otherwise, I’m assuming JML is acting in good faith. I’ll come look at the deletion discussion. Go check out my latest good articles BP refinery and CFFMEU. compare to Dietrich v the queen. You’ll see my latest ones don’t reference the case at all, compared to Dietrich which failed a featured article review because I cited the case too often. We aren’t actually meant to cite decisions often at all in articles because technically they’re primary sources here. Unlike in our law school assignments, interpreting cases and citing them is not allowed here as it’s original research. We have to summarise what others have said. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]