Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd


 * 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" ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 22:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable law suit. Does not set a precedent or challenge established case law. Padillah (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you know.  Wik idea  21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's got to be one of the better retorts I've seen here. I better watch my step. Padillah (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The case is on the reading lists for most good universities in first year contract law. It's a court of appeal case. It lays down a precedent for the use of the reasonableness test in UCTA 1977, as applying to consumer protection. My guess, with the greatest respect, is you didn't know any of this, and you spend your time taking random jabs at articles which are being created. Sorry, but you're not qualified to comment. You wouldn't have a clue whether it's a notable law suit or it establishes a precedent. You're wrong. Stop wasting everyone's time and do something useful.  Wik idea  11:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. I wouldn't have a clue whether it's a notable law suit or not because you never put any of the above in the article! Give that a shot and see how it turns out for you. And try a little harder not to take AfD's personally. If I'm wrong, show me, have an admin close the AfD and move on. It's not like I threw tomatoes at your house or something, it's a WP article for cryin' out load. You're british, have a cup of tea. Padillah (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not post something on the talk page then, like a polite person? I'm removing the silly tag again, and request that you withdraw your comment - no need for an admin (although you're welcome to draw this out if you want: there's just no point). If you don't know what you're doing, why are you doing it? As I say, you're wasting both our time. I don't take anything personally, but I hope you do - please be a little more thoughtful about where you put those tags up. (I've already got a cup of tea as it happens!)
 * By the way, even if this was a relatively minor case in a minor court - I would be saying that it is ALWAYS relevant and notable. Every case that goes beyond a magistrate is notable for that very fact. But it's very unlikely that you'll ever come across any case on Wikipedia that isn't notable anyway. That's why people like me take the time to put these things up.  Wik idea  21:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not ever remove AfD tags, as per the directions. Allow the AfD to run its course.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who says I can't remove AfD tags; have a look at the Proposed deletion section of the policy page. You're just protecting your pride now: you know as well as I do that there's no deletion issue here. How dare you be so patronising and obnoxious.
 * "Proposed deletion an editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion." Wik idea ''' 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidea got a good point, "Why not post something on the talk page" why not follow WP:PRESERVE and WP:Deletion. Remember, deletion is a last resort and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article (also WP:POTENTIAL).


 * Strong keep "Does not set a precedent or challenge established case law."???? For the life of me I can find any guideline for deletion on lawsuits. But I sure find a wide variety of sources for this page, including the Financial Times, Legal Week, 442 citings on google Twenty citations on google books. I see no effort to improve this article or talk with editors of this article, in violation of WP:PRESERVE: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to..." Nominator quotes "notability" but he did not do what notability asks: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself.", and WP:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" The first edit nominator made to this article was to delete. Ikip (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both fair points. I was on New Page Patrol and got too into the CSD of it. I didn't want to CSD this article because it looked like it could use the discussion and I wasn't too well versed in the field of law so I went with AfD instead. I should have gone to the talk page and asked around, I've got to keep that in mind. That doesn't change the fact that you don't stop an AfD by removing the template from the article. You tag it with or  (like you did). Padillah (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator 3 minutes after this article was created, nominator put this article up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to above: In other words, this should have been a WP:CSD instead. No editor should ever expect an article to remain past New Page Patrol unless it contains a minimum of 2 to 3 references from the VERY start, whether the case is valid or not.  I don't see any proper citations, a swath of copyright violation.  This article should be removed, worked on inside someone's sandbox, then re-created when it's actually ready.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In point of fact I almost CSD'd the article but didn't because of my lack of expertise in the field. It's a simple thing really - I was patrolling new pages, saw one that had no references at all and no content beyond a summary of the case file, and thought it wasn't a very notable article. This isn't a condemnation of the policies and procedures of WP, it's not like I'm stalking Wikidea's edits... for cryin' out loud it's just a New Page Patrol. AfD it or don't, I just wanted eyes on it. Padillah (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you understand better for next time then Padillah ... CSD it, and let someone who does know decide if it's keepable or not. Editors also hopefully learned to not remove tags.  Good lessons for all. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Bwilkins, you simply don't understand this page. The references are in the infobox: those citations refer to court reports. There are more than three. Furthermore there is definitely no copyright violation. Court judgments (rather than, say, direct lifting of material from a copyrighted report) are in the public domain. It's public knowledge. It's citing a portion of a very lengthy judgment.  Wik idea  18:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...err, and have you noticed that I have not made a keep/delete comment because this is not my area of expertise? I got involved because you removed AfD tags ... a distinct violation of policy.  I'm merely teaching how the process should have worked - CSD would have been correct if there was doubt in NPP - that is their role, and it is not your role to remove tags of any type. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. I thought you were advocating that the page be deleted. I'm happy that you don't think that - because the issues don't arise.  Wik idea  23:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - important case that is likely to be cited and discussed for years to come... a bit like the the Paisley Snail case which coincidentally also concerned the safe manufacture of carbonated beverages. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - important case. I have added a reference to its notability, infobox gives reference to case itself. It is not one of the purposes of AFD to teach people lessons. Thincat (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everywhere is a place to teach lessons. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 17:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really a very stupid thing to say. I think you're being taught a lesson, but you probably won't learn anything.  Wik idea  18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, you need to learn your own WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I learn something every day from my kids, from my wife, and even from where I work.  I learn when I'm shoveling my driveway.  I learn new things when editing Wikipedia, or discussing my favourite hockey team on a fan site.  Every moment of every day, we all have an opportunity to learn something.  Now, grow up.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, there is simply nothing that I could conceivably learn from this stupid, stupid, stupid AfD nomination. It is a pure waste of time. It might have taught me that there are people that like to put up deletion tags rather than spend time writing articles, but I already knew that. Please, in future don't drag people through this stupid process when they're clearly doing something of use. As I said above, if I found out that a single legal case was deleted by anyone here, I would be saying that you ought to be very ashamed. There will never be a situation in which a reported court case is not notable.  Wik idea  20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you more credit than I should have: Padillah learned not to AfD articles, but it must go through the process.  You learned not to remove AfD tags.  No comment was made by me about the article itself.  Please read carefully in the future.  I didn't drag anything or anyone anywhere. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "infobox gives reference to case itself" -- that's not actually accurate. The infobox reads "[2002] EWCA Civ 548; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 321; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 368; Times, May 22, 2002".  The first two items in this list are references to the judgment itself.  The third is a reference to a law report article about the judgment (which does establish notability as not all cases are reported in such journals, which are clearly reliable sources).  The fourth is a reference to an article about the case in the Times. JulesH (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Pissing matches set aside there does seem to be sources available. The article should be improved to show notability a bit better so those who wonder why it's here will have a clue. -- Banj e  b oi   04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable case; plenty of references to establish notability, and these references were in the article from the beginning (see 'citations' in the infobox). Perhaps the fact that legal references use a different format to other fields confused the nominator? JulesH (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (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.