Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collins v Wilcock


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Collins v Wilcock

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability: mentions in RS limited to subject (casebooks, study guides, etc.) Also, WP:NOT a law school. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This leading case satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The precedent established by this judgment has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. Having an article on this case does not violate WP:NOT. In addition to being irrelevant, the claim that this case is only taught at (postgraduate) law schools is also not true. This case is so fundamental and important that it is actually included in books at all levels down to GCSE ; and Wikipedia is not a primary school for children under the age of 12. James500 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The citation for the GCSE is paywalled (maybe bc I'm in the US), neither archive.org nor Gutenberg have that book, and I don't think WP:LIBRARY has that book. Out of WP:LIBRARY searches for the case, Oxford Law is 'temporarily unavailable', Cambridge Press turns up nothing, and Wiley turns up some possible mentions somewhere in the footnotes. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide citations for ? All coverage I've seen in my searches is brief and very subject-specific.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) says nothing about "subject-specific" sources. Significant coverage is significant no matter how "subject-specific" the source is.
 * It is not sufficient to search WP:LIBRARY alone. It is especially not sufficient to search the internal search engine on the Cambridge University Press site and Wiley alone. The internal search engine on the Cambridge University Press site appears to search metadata and not the text of sources. The internal search engine on the Oxford University Press site indicates coverage in 36 sources. According to Google there is coverage in 40+ sources on the Oxford University Press site; and 40+ sources on the Cambridge University Press site. The sources on the Wiley site are not particularly numerous, but include discussion of the case in a footnote; and footnotes that are citations to a discussion of the case in the body of the article. (It is not enough to read the footnote; you have to read the text in the body of the article that is cited to that footnote). It is always necessary to look at Google Books and Google Scholar. There is coverage in 170+ books (including some periodicals) in Google Books and in 480+ sources in Google Scholar. These include about 90+ sources from HeinOnline. GScholar does not appear to index the content (most of which is paywalled) on Lexis or Westlaw, both of which include journals, and both of which need to be searched. It is always necessary to look at the Internet Archive. There is coverage in 640+ sources in the Internet Archive. There are 40+ sources in BAILII: . These are not indexed in Google at all. There is also material on the CanLII (20+ sources  ), AustLII SAFLII, and CommonLII, sites, which does not seem to be indexed, or completely indexed, by GScholar. According to Google, the .ac.uk domain contains coverage in 130+ sources from Universities etc in the United Kingdom, which do not seem to be indexed, or completely indexed, by GScholar. Then there are the sources from Australian Universities etc in the .edu.au domain:  (60+ sources including AustLII). And the sources from the New Zealand Universities etc in the ac.nz domain: . And the sources from Osgoode Hall, De Gruyter and JSTOR which do not seem to be indexed, or completely indexed, by GScholar. And the sites of the other Canadian, American and Irish universities.
 * So:
 * Are you actually going to read the several hundred plus sources yourself? And will you state exactly which, and exactly how many, of those several hundred plus sources you have actually read? Or would you like me to give you a blow by blow account of the significant coverage in the several hundred plus sources? James500 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: I don't have access to facilities such as Westlaw, but looking at Steele's "Tort Law" (Oxford, Third Edition, ISBN 9780198755920), the section on Battery: The Nature of the Required Contact leads with the Court of Appeal judgment in this case (detailed quotations on pages 47-48, then informing discussion on pages 59-61). This plus the sources indicated above appears sufficient to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Due to the significant coverage in reliable sources as follows:
 * 1) Harvey, B., Marston, J. (2009). Cases and Commentary on Tort. United Kingdom: OUP Oxford.
 * 2) Matthews, M., Howarth, D., Hepple, B., Tofaris, S., Morgan, J., O'Sullivan, J. (2016). Hepple and Matthews' Tort Law: Cases and Materials. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. (9 lines, so borderline, but I'm satisfied)
 * 3) Monaghan, N. (2016). Criminal Law Directions. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
 * 4) Rackley, E., Horsey, K. (2019). Kidner's Casebook on Torts. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. (8 lines, but important ones)
 * I consider that this article meets the threshold of WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2023 (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.