Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find anything that suggests this is a notable case. It's from the second-tier South Africa Appellate Division. The case is not generally reported on; I found a law review article, an academic dissertation and a blog entry ; but none give any particular attention to the case, they're all just passing mentions. TJRC (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no idea how to evaluate notability for legal cases, but it seems the case is at least well-cited in South African law journals: quite a number of references on Google Scholar. Suriname0 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All just string-cites, though, with the exception of this one, which only has a couple paragraphs. TJRC (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That Hutchison article seems pretty good! Definitely not a passing mention. One more article of that level of substance would lead me to vote Keep. Also, there may be more info in the Broomberg journal article, which is excerpted in the dissertation you linked above, but I don't have access to check its contents. Suriname0 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Numerous Google Books hits indicating citation of the case in texts. Thousands of judicial cases are decided in any given jurisdiction every year. Very few end up being widely referenced in texts. BD2412  T 02:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/weak keep The characterisation of the Appellate Division as “second tier” in nom is inaccurate. It was, at the time, the apex court in South Africa and remained so for non-constitutional matters until 2013 when Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa was passed. I haven’t had a chance to further research the notability, and I would defer to others on that count at this point, however would suggest that the article be rewritten to make it more accessible to non-lawyers. Park3r (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with respect to it needing the re-write, although that's not what directly led me to bring it to AFD (I recognize that AFD is not for cleanup). It did indirectly lead me to AFD, in that my first impulse was to do exactly that rewrite (as I did on, for example, Giglio material when it was up for AFD). It was only when I dug in and tried to find sources -- and couldn't -- that suggests to me that it does not meet WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep treated as an authority case in South African contract law with regard to simulated transactions.  Quoted in apex court decisions outside South Africa more than 30 years later.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2021 (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.