Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henderson & Co v Williams


 * 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 delete. Draftification can be requested at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein  19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Henderson & Co v Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has so many issues. I can a copy of the court decision at (I determined this to be a reference to a different case) and I've found a source I can't access that seems to mention the subject at. This case does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:CASES. Most of the information I can find is from similarly named cases from different years, and I can't find much in the way of this case ever being used as a precedent. I can't state with 100% certainty that it fails "1. It is the subject of a reasoned opinion of the highest court of a country, state or province." from WP:CASES, but that's just because the article does not indicate the court it was tried in, although it is in Category:English contract law (this is the only indication of which country this case is from). Even if enough is turned up to pass WP:CASES, This would qualify for WP:TNT. This article doesn't even have citations. The only references to this case I was even able to turn up were on Revolvy (typically a Wikipedia mirror) and a blogspot site. Fails both the general and subject-specific notability guidelines. Hog Farm (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * RE where the case was heard, and what standing the ruling might have, given that it is cited as QB it was heard in the Queen's Bench Division, which is part of the High Court. While certainly not "the highest court of a country" (which seems to me an unduly onerous test, given that very few cases end up in the Supreme Court!), or even the second highest for that matter, the High Court is nevertheless one of the senior courts. I'm not commenting on whether this justifies the article, just wanted to explain that particular point. HTH, DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CASES is part of a page which explicitly states that it is a failed proposal. What is more, it didn't just marginally fail: there was very nearly 100% consensus against the proposal when it was discussed. It is therefore not at all appropriate to cite it as a criterion for notability. JBW (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Big oops there - I typed "Wikipedia notability court cases" into Google trying to find the subject specific notability guidelines, and it took me straight to the section in the middle of the page. I never saw the failed proposal header at the top.  Striking out that part of my argument from the rationale. Hog Farm (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The case is referred to in a number of sources I have found, and it may possibly be notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. (I am bewildered as to why the only "references to this case" HogFarm could find were Revolvy and blogspot.) However, even if it is notable to be the subject of an article, this article is not the one. The text of the article consists entirely of unattributed copies from two sources, and is written in terms appropriate in the contexts from which they are copied, but not for a Wikipedia article. There is no context to allow a reader to understand what the case means or what its relevance is. It uses legal jargon which will be totally opaque to well over 99% of readers. (For example, how many people will have the remotest idea what is meant by "having attorned to the purchaser, was estopped from impeaching his title, that the refusal to deliver was a conversion"?) There are no references, and no indication of why the case is notable (if it is). It would be possible to rewrite the text to make it comprehensible, but that would still provide no context or evidence of notability. The article has existed in a totally unsuitable state since 2015, with nobody taking any steps to improve it in that time; it is unlikely that anyone is going to do so now, and if they are, then they can just as well start from scratch. JBW (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a lot of references to a "Henderson v. Williams" from North Carolina a few years later. If I'd known for sure that it was from the UK, I would not have made the nom (My search engine is set up in a way that it highly prioritizes sites from the United States, and I haven't been able to get this changed). Hog Farm (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was forgetting that search engines such as Google can sometimes produce very different results for the same search from different people, depending on what it thinks is likely to be relevant to those people. Prioritising results from the country one appears to be in is one of many ways that is done, so it's perfectly likely that 's searches may have failed to produce the mentions that I found. JBW (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to draft. The case appears to be noted in at least one textbook (and, from a quick Google Books search, possibly others), so it may be salvageable. While it is true that the article could be redrawn from scratch, why do that when this can be used as a starting point? BD2412  T 17:01, 9 February 2020 (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.