Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilmott v Johnson


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wilmott v Johnson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear notability, quick internet search yields little/no coverage Noahhoward (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article certainly needs expansion to explain why this case is notable., who started the article.- gadfium 07:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 07:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 07:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: although there's no subject-specific notability guideline for court cases, good indicators are if they have made it to the top tier of the legal system, whether they are considered by legal scholars as landmark cases and whether a lasting legal precedent is set. This only satisfies the third and that alone, along with the failure of GNG as source searches bring up little when it comes to academic coverage or legal sector analysis of the case, leads me to conclude that the case isn't noteworthy.    SITH   (talk)   13:20, 30 December 2018 (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.