Deletion of Contostavlos v Mendahun

Comment: I would disagree that it sets a precedent on false denials; Tugendhat makes no statement as to decisions made as a result of the false denial, unless we mean the fact that the case continued going ahead despite that - which may or may not be significant precedent, but either way, is |not something we are qualified to decide. The question ultimately comes down to nothing more than whether this passes #NEWS, up until qualified publications argue that it involved some element of precedent or longevity. This may be the case, and I appreciate that (as Francium notes) it may be some while before legal publications catch up with this real world event. But that is something we will correct for when the time comes: we do not keep articles in the hope that they will justify notability in the future, but instead when we can confirm they have passed the notability tests in the past
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)