Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus here that this article subject is notable. If editors interested in this article could spend some time improving it and adding additional sources you have come across, that would be welcome. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2)

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

No demonstration of notability — Panamitsu (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and New Zealand. — Panamitsu (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Transportation.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I mean, the case happened and it's mentioned but I don't find critical discussion of it... This reads like an essay written by someone in high school. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the Gscholar link brings up law journals, but it's above my pay grade to try and understand what's discussed about the case. What do others thin? Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This article has been online for 9 years before it has had its notability challenged. Given this and the fact that it has 2 law books cited n support and that it has been subsequently edited by several others, I believe meets notability in spades Kiwisheriff (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I am a bit surprised as the paucity of sources showing online. This case was often mentioned in consideration of so-called Lemon Laws. Although the case's impact pretty well faded a soon as the 1993 CGA went into effect, notability does not expire. The subject is enclyclopaedic, sourced, and (at least during the 80s) sustained. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support for the article. However, I would argue that the legal concept of "merchantable quality" has not faded with the implementation of the CGA, as not only was this section under the SGA copied into the CGA, it actually enhanced it, by making it illegal to contract out of the law by the retailer, ie. "no refund" signs. Kiwisheriff (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Implied warranty would be a good candidate for expanding on the state of the NZ law, for anyone interested. — HTGS (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am surprised at a nomination that doesn’t address the two books cited, which, if they give reasonable coverage, would be sufficient alone to support notability. Then, as mentioned, the scholar links (eg ) add plenty of potential sourcing. Obviously the article’s current quality, nor the length it has existed do not affect the decision here. As some of us know well, NZ law is still underdeveloped on Wikipedia, but if it weren’t, I would support a merge up into the relevant area-of-law article. — HTGS (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. This case has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There are entire periodical articles about this case: . (There are also entire periodical articles about the concept of "merchantable quality" generally). James500 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 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.