Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dehn v Attorney-General


 * 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   no consensus. This is a hard one. WP:Notability (law) isn't a policy or guideline so it is hard to accept arguments based on it. This then comes down to the GNG argument versus the argument that posed the article for deletion. The few brief metions in a few text book does not seem to be able to carry the discussion. It is between a relist and a close without a consenus. Since I don't think that more time will improve the discussion, I am closing it. Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Dehn v Attorney-General

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a case before an intermediate appellate court. It is cited in a student textbook. There is no indication given that it is widely cited or used as a precedent. The decision seems to relate to the facts of the case, not to the establishment of any general principle of NZ law. There is no other sourcing. I see no principle that would make this notable. WP is not a record of all appellate decisions.

Furthermore, the article contains negative value statements about named  living people  e.g. "dysfunctional family" that would have to be sourced exactly to a reliable source. I would not regard the textbook as such a source, and I see no such language in the pdf of the appellate verdict.  DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Notable. This case satisfies GNG. There are sources in GBooks in addition to those in the article (which cites law reports in addition to the textbook). It also seems to satisfy criteria 2 of WP:CASES as a decision of the Court of Appeal (affirming an earlier decision of the High Court reported at [1988] 2 NZLR 564): . Also called Dehn v A-G: . The sources in GBooks and NZLII do seem to think it decided something of general application. They say it is concerned with the consequences of the absence of highhanded or oppressive conduct, whether non-proprietory damages can ever be recovered for trespass to land, when exemplary damages can be awarded, and so forth. In particular, this case recognised the existence of a defence of necessity to trespass, and its analysis was approved in R v Fraser [2005] 2 NZLR 109 at [33] (discussed here at [71]). I have removed the passage that was objected to. It isn't clear to me why any BLP concerns can't be fixed by editing. James500 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Kiwisheriff has said on his user talk page that this case is notable and given reasons for that opinion with this edit. James500 (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , it does not meet WP:CASES, which says "It is the subject of a reasoned opinion of the highest court in a legal jurisdiction" The Court of Appeal was not at the time the highest court in the jurisdiction--it was the intermediate level court of appeal.17:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It does meet WP:CASES. Criteria 1 and 2 are alternatives. This is clear from the introduction which reads "a court case . . . is . . . notable if it fulfills any of the following requirements" (original emphasis). The case does appear to meet criteria 2 which reads "it has set a legal precedent that is formally binding (in common law systems)". This appears to be a reasonable criteria because the creation or confirmation of rules of law is important, and also because it does correlate with being reported and cited as an authority elsewhere, and with coverage in general. (A modern law report typically includes several pages of detailed commentary by the reporter, in addition to a copy of the judgement, and this case has received several such reports, amongst the rest of the coverage). James500 (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as meets WP:CASES - ruling is binding NealeFamily (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2&cent; 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as satisfying WP:CASES. Cited in lawbooks worldwide, though only snippets are viewable online. Edison (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: why is WP:CASES being referenced? It's a failed proposal and not accepted as a guideline or even a community standard, no? czar ♔   21:32, 2 November 2014 (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.