Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkes v Jessop


 * 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. Consensus in this discussion is to delete, as there are insufficient sources to show notability. As this is a decision of the lowest level court of record, only in the rarest of instances would I expect its decision to be notable. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wilkes v Jessop

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:GNG. While it was reported in a law report, this does not make notability: firstly, law reports regularly report unimportant cases and miss important ones, secondly it's a primary source rather than a secondary one, and thirdly it's a single source, which isn't the standard set by WP:GNG.

I have looked at multiple contract textbooks, all published after the case: None of them give this case as either an example nor something that set precedent. It's also worth noting that this is a County Court case.. and county courts cannot, under any circumstance, set binding precedent. Ironholds (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Ironholds beat me to it; I had said to the article's primary contributor when he contested the prod that I would bring it to AfD sometime this week when time permitted. It's a decision of a Deputy District Judge (the lowest level of judges in the County Courts of England and Wales), it does not change or extend the law but is merely an example of the application of the law to existing facts, it has not been mentioned or followed in any other cases that I can find, it does not bind any court hearing any similar case.  And, as Ironholds said, it's drawn from a single source and has received no coverage in secondary sources. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

People reading this may be baffled by why they want to delete a perfectly informative contract law case page. But to answer their claims (1) it's not in those books that Ironholds lists because his books precede the case (he doesn't seem to have read the page) and even if he hadn't got his dates wrong, casebooks could include it later (2) the case is a binding precedent, as Bencherlite inadvertently gave us a [the Practice Direction on Citation of Authorities link for on my userpage; that a county court judgment can be cited...
 * Keep. The above users say three things: (1) it's not in textbooks (2) the case is not a binding precedent (3) it's only covered in no secondary sources.

in order to demonstrate current authority at that level on an issue in respect of which no decision at a higher level of authority is available.

So Bencherlite is wrong (embarrassingly, I think). (3) Actually, there is a secondary source, which is the Current Law Yearbook (that's CLY, which you see under 'citation' - the primary source, of course, is the official report). There will probably be more, and when this important case has been around for a little longer, it may prove of some use. So, these two guys are wrong on all three counts, and I remain baffled why they care in the first place.  Wik idea  15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Embarrassingly wrong, am I? I beg to differ. It's a decision on its own facts, not a new principle of law - it follows and applies principles of law laid down by higher cases, which can and would be cited in later decision.  It's exactly the type of decision that the Practice Direction is designed to prevent being tossed around in court. In any case, even if it could be cited in case, that wouldn't make it notable. BencherliteTalk 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Read 6(2)(b) once more. On the contrary, it seems to depart from what other cases suggest. You're right though, I'm wrong about you being embarrassed.  Wik idea  16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is binding precedent. County Court cases can be cited, yes; so can obiter. It doesn't mean it's precedent. The books were all published one or two years after the case, so the books do not precede the case. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really unfortunate that you're trying to argue that this isn't precedent. What can I say? To the other readers, please trust me. The case was in 2007. Nobody had heard of it because it was not reported.  Wik idea  18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust is bollocks. Here you're another anonymous editor with no authority to comment. Bring up multiple, reliable, secondary sources and we'll talk. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, but rename and work some more on it. I think this is something readers want to know about. Law precedant cases explained to laymen are important. I am a layman on the topic, but I want to know that if a photo studio butchers and/or destroys my pictures there are protections and consequences. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a how to guide to explain legal rights to people. BencherliteTalk 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's an informative encyclopedia, which just so happens to help explain legal rights to people as a side-effect of being informative. That's not a reason to automatically keep, but your reason is no reason to automatically delete either.  Elm-39 - T/C/N 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles are expected to fulfil WP:GNG - this one does not. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Would appear to be no WP:Reliable Sources on the topic, and as such fails WP:GNG. Not prejudiced against recreating when (if) reliable sources actually appear. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball, however, and I don't think it should exist as an article at this moment in time. Skinny87 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is there no 'reliable source'??? What is the Current Law Yearbook? What does this have to do with cystal balls? This case is not about predictions, it lays down a clear principle based on the concrete facts before the judge.  Wik idea  16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I forgot to add the 'WP' before the WP:CRYSTAL shortcut, a policy which states that 'Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.' Now, although it does state that it is okay to add articles about future events, the lack of reliable sources (the report itself, while reliable, is not a secondary source) means that we have no idea of the importance of this court case. Hence, per WP:GNG it should be deleted, though I see no harm in it being placed in your sandbox until such time as more reliable sources appear to cite the article properly. Skinny87 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's not a future event, this happened back in 2007. Has anyone read this article before slamming down deletes, really?  Elm-39 - T/C/N 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Skinny87, I'm afraid you might misunderstand - cases will be recorded by an official recorder, who produces an official transcript. The report - the Current Law Yearbook, is a secondary source, not related to the court, which chooses cases which it thinks are important. Ironholds seems to think that he's better at telling which reported cases are significant than the reporters, but I disagree. It's important, because it lays down a binding precedent, and an important application of law where there had been no similar case before. That's why I went to the trouble of writing up the page to begin with.
 * I realize it occurred two years ago, but CRYSTAL still applies as it is at the moment a low-level court decision, which would appear not to have made it to a higher legal level. Until it does so, it would appear to be non-notabe. But, most importantly, there are no more reliable sources on the decision, other than the Yearbook, which means it fails WP:GNG, as I have said and that's the real crux of my argument. Until they exist, it can't really be verified as notable, doesn't meet general notability guidelines, and therefore can't be included in my opinion. Skinny87 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does it say in WP:GNG that the CLY is not enough? Again the decision has two sources: the official report and CLY. I expect you won't agree now, but it is a legal precedent in England. That is notable. It will mean that when your photos are wrecked, you cannot get damages for disappointment.  Wik idea  17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ironholds seems to think that he's better.." - no, what I'm saying is that the yearbooks constantly give cases that are later found by academia to be unimportant, and misses ones that are vital. Since academia has, in the two years since the case, given absolutely no coverage to it, this implies that the law reporters indeed slipped up. Treitel is the contract writer, and he's said nothing. McKendrick is the contract writer for simpletons, and he's said nothing. So far nobody has been able to cite anything outside a law report - and thus, the article fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidea, it requires two secondary sources. A verbatim transcript is primary, not secondary. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. I apologize for not being clearer. Skinny87 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, check your dates again, as I said above. And once more there is no requirement for two secondary sources. In fact, isn't the law (in abstract) the primary source and both the official report, and the CLY a secondary source? Once again, it's a binding precedent, it's reported, and that's why this deletion page still baffles me.  Wik idea  18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who does it bind? Nobody. No other judge is obliged to follow any principle of law created by a deputy district judge in a county court. Your insistence that this is a binding precedent baffles me. BencherliteTalk 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The citation for the case is 2007; my books are 2008-9. WP:GNG has a stated requirement for multiple secondary sources; that's, ooh.. more than one. The report is a primary source - it's a recorded, verbatim account of the obiter and ratio. It is not binding precedent - it's from the county court! It can be cited to demonstrate "current authority", but that certainly isn't the same as binding precedent. Case in the High Court "well what do the courts say about this?" "it's relatively new, but this county court decision says X" "very well, but I disagree, and think the principal should be like so" - it has been cited, can be cited, but does not bind. County Court decisions, even in new areas of law, are never binding on future decisions from higher or similar courts. Ironholds (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit: just noticed I've been citing the wrong copy of Treitel, sorry. The copy I've been using is the 08/09 one. Ironholds (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please try not to portray your biased view. The central problem here is that it fails WP:GNG; you've not been able to show that it doesn't. The fact that it doesn't appear in any of the leading case books is good evidence that it is not a significant case. And County Court decisions are never binding - show me a textbook or practice manual that says that they are? The fact that they can be cited in court doesn't make them binding - obiter can be cited, after all. Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh shit, I'm wrong about precedent. Please forgive my comments. Well, I still think you should keep the page. Even if my precedent argument is wrong, it was good enough for the CLY.  Wik idea  16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which doesn't constitute multiple sources, as per WP:GNG. Different things set different standards - the fact that the CLY chooses to include it does not oblige us to. Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of another case which was in the Industrial Relations Law Reports recently, and is a County Court decision, which I wouldn't be able to put up if Wilkes cannot be put up: Spackman v London Metropolitan University [2007] IRLR 741
 * If you wouldn't be able to put it up, you wouldn't be able to put it up. "you must include non-notable case X because otherwise non-notable case Y won't be included". Did either X or Y set anything important? By definition not, because they're county cases. When X and Y pass WP:GNG, they can be included. When the High Court makes a decision based on X, then the HC decision can be included. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Decisions of courts of first instance are rarely significant. This case might have been notable had it gone the other way, but it merely confirms existing law.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In the US something like this would be about as trivbial as it gets, and it seems the situation is the same in the UK.   DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 29 October 2009 (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.