Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This user has added a number of articles about New Zealand case law. Most of them appear to have no references at all or anything that might give us an impression of the notability (or otherwise) of this topic. Other articles include Nichols v Jessup, Young v Hunt, Couch v Branch Investments (1969) Limited. These all seem like sensible articles, however my overriding concern is that there's a serious danger in giving bad legal information. We ought not to have unsourced legal articles even if they are the 'truth'. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, I totally disagree with this argument for deletion. Whilst in a perfect world it would be preferable to have the proper legal references, but surely legal articles with allegedly no references is surely better than having no NZ legal articles at all on Wikipedia - my contributions make up 90% of all NZ wiki law articles! And in saying these articles are "non referenced", they all have the correct legal citations so if people want to check / verify the facts, they have the means to do so. Furthermore, some of these mentioned articles, I have included a web link to view the full original court judgment, such as Nichols v Jessup & Young v Hunt. If this is deemed by you to not being a proper reference, I don't know what is. At the end of the day, all of these cases I have done articles on have been cited in NZ legal textbooks for university law students. Surely this meets the wiki notability requirements and I request that these articles are not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the notes of support guys! I again struggle to see Salimfadhley's unreferenced claim, when they all have the proper legal citations, legal info boxes, and in a lot of cases, links to copies of the full original judgments of the court. Anyway, I have now added a reference to support it's notability, so hopefully this makes his concerns redundant. We shall see... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator needs to read WP:BEFORE. The fact that an article does not cite any sources is not a valid rationale for deletion, because the nominator is suppossed to look for sources and add them to the article. That said, this article does cite a source, namely the New Zealand Law Reports. The nominators ignorance of New Zealand law ("there's a serious danger in giving bad legal information") is not a valid rationale for deletion either, as the nominator is suppossed to attempt to verify the propositions of fact and law in the article before nominating it for deletion. James500 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC) The nominator should also read Legal disclaimer. If readers take our articles at face value, any consequences that follow are their own fault. James500 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG: . James500 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Not a valid AfD argument.  Schwede 66  17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2013 (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.