Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd


 * 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. UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic is not notable and the references do not support the information contained in the article.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 16:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it may be cited, but there;'s no evidence its a leading case.  DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have cited 2 sources to support this case, both leading NZ university law text books, and whilst an editor has said these books do not support this case, I doubt a Philosophy graduate in the US has even access to these books in the first place. Furthermore, this editor has removed part of the article on the basis that legal notices are not allowed, when clearly such notices are required in legal articles. For the record, law case always have their quirks, and this case is frequently compared to Conlon v Ozolin. As stated this case is listed in 2 law text books, and I have not been aware that these cases have been since removed from these books. Do you guys really have nothing better to do than try to deleted article that has 2 widely noted references in support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as this case meets notability for events in that it created a legal precedent in New Zealand relating to contract law therefore it has a lasting effect. The case is also cited reasonably often in legal textbooks dealing with such law giving it duration. NealeFamily (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Point to note for previous editor comment:"I doubt a Philosophy graduate in the US has even access to these books in the first place. Furthermore, this editor has removed part of the article on the basis that legal notices are not allowed, when clearly such notices are required in legal articles." This is a personal attack on the editor. (1) Do not attack the person - use Wiki Guidelines to prove your case and (2) any editor may change Wiki (within the guidelines), whether or not we necessarily agree with that change. NealeFamily (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the removal of the text of the letter from the article was based on plainly erroneous reasoning. The letter wasn't being quoted in the article to 'make a legal announcement'. It was being quoted as part of the material facts of the case, the gist of which is presented in the article as 'if, in a similar future case, someone sends a letter like that one, or a similar letter, under those circumstances, or under similar circumstances, will it render him personally liable?'. (The case was concerned with the effect of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977). James500 (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This satisfies GNG due to sources in GBooks, GScholar and elsewhere. This satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, as a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. EVENT is irrelevant as an exclusionary criteria. A judicial precedent is not an event, it is a law. Moreover the actual judgement with which we are concerned is not an event, it is a document. A more likely guideline would be TBK, which just tells us to use common sense. Every time one of Kiwisheriff's court case articles gets nominated, it is always kept. Consensus should be clear by now. This nomination has WP:SNOW chance of success. James500 (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wiki entries are always open to challenge regardless of an editors past perfomance, but I support the keep as I think it crosses threshhold on a number of grounds anyway. NealeFamily (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep, per NealeFamily. Paora (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC) {{subst:Afd bottom
 * Keep, I'm not entirely sure why this got relisted again, but the case appears to meet notability requirements.  Schwede 66  08:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)