Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catley v Herbert

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. Missvain (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catley v Herbert[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significance is not clear; neither is rationale of the decision . not all cases that have been subsequently cited are notable. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This case satisfies GNG. As a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, it also satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of that court are binding: [1] (subscription required). Its significance is immediately obvious: as a binding precedent it creates law that people in New Zealand have to obey. This binding effect does not depend on subsequent citation of the case (though there is plenty of discussion), but arises automatically from the fact that it is a rule of law that decisions of that court are binding. The ratio decidendi (referred to as the "rationale of the decision" in the nomination) of the case is not unclear. The ratio decidendi is clearly stated in the headnote, written by the reporter, of the report of this case in the New Zealand Law Reports at [1988] 1 NZLR 606. This case decided, in particular, for example, the meaning of the expression "financial assistance" in a statute, putting a gloss on that expression, and thereby altering what you have to do (not just in this case but in all future cases) to comply with that statute and, indeed, any other statute that uses that expression and which is in pari materia (ie the context in which the expression appears is sufficiently similar): [2]. The sources in GBooks and elsewhere clearly think this case decided something of significance. James500 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom and per the comments of James500. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.