Template:Did you know nominations/Relevant and irrelevant considerations in Singapore administrative law
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Relevant and irrelevant considerations in Singapore administrative law
edit- ... that a 1991 Singapore court case quashed an order requiring a woman to rename her business for being too similar to J. C. Penney as the authorities had taken into account irrelevant considerations?
- Reviewed: Franjo Kukuljević.
- Comment: The article was created by moving it from a sandbox on 5 February 2014. The hook is referenced by footnotes 13 and 14.
Created by Fionachew (talk), Scrumpled (talk), Yishyuan.hoon (talk), Zacklin (talk), and Ziyang.tang (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 14:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC).
This article was moved into mainspace on 4th February and when nominated was new enough and long enough. The article is well written and the hook is well sourced. I have not considered close paraphrasing issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
