Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bednash v Hearsey

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. SpinningSpark 11:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bednash v Hearsey

Bednash v Hearsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 12:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment to talk page. Hope this helps. But the user above is uninformed: the Court of Appeal case is always significant, and in this case it sets an important precedent. Wikidea 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, it must be noted that the above comment is from the page creator. Second, it is wrong. We have no guideline suggesting that such cases are "always sigificant"; the closest thing is an abandoned proposal. The appropriate guideline is therefore WP:GNG, for which there is currently no evidence of being met. —swpb^T 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Wikidea is correct on both counts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the guideline that supports this. There is none. Without a specific guideline identified, your comment should be struck from consideration as completely unsupported. —swpb^T 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. It's how caselaw works; decisions made in higher courts are followed by lower courts; they have legal significance. Their legal significance makes them notable - both to lower courts, and as a result to us. Don;t expect to read about this case on page 3 of The Sun, but in all other respects is like the hundreds of other such cases we have articles for. Now stop WP:Badgering, please, and accept that others have a different view from yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading GNG, then reading WP:OTHERSTUFF. GNG asks for reliable independent sources, of which we have zero, and OTHERSTUFF points out that the existence of similar articles is not a valid argument. Taking apart flawed arguments isn't "badgering" (another page it doesn't appear you've read), it's exactly how AfDs are supposed to work. Make a valid case to keep if you can, but falsifying policies and guidelines isn't going to fly here. —swpb^T 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzz. The article asserts the notability of the case. Additional references would always be welcome, but AGF the existing reference is more than enough. Really, swpb, you don't make your case haggling like this. The article is keep. That will be the result. Deal with it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many blatantly incorrect statements can you make? 1) An assertion of notability alone is worthless; GNG requires sources. 2) WP:AGF is a guideline governing editor behavior; it has zero relevance to the question of whether an article meets a notability guideline. Anything else you want to throw at the wall? —swpb^T 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the good faith of the person who added the reference which I cannot read (it's behind a paywall). So we have an assertion of notability. We have a source. And we have you being uncivil and abusive in a rattle-out-of-pram sort of a way. 2 out of 3 ain't bad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who added that source made no statement to the effect that it offered significant coverage of the subject; the only implicit statement that can be assumed is that it supports something in the article (we don't even know what, since there's no inline citation). The source could mention this subject in the most trivial way, and still be added in good faith. There is nothing to AGF about regarding notability. Abusive? For not letting you have the last, wrong, word? Good luck with that. WP:HARASSMENT, which you linked to, makes it clear that false accusations are themselves personal attacks, so you might want to stop digging approximately now. —swpb^T 17:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unimpressed with your continued WP:Badgering. As I asked earlier, please accept that others have a different view from yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not what WP:Badgering says. At all. Have any opinion you want about this article, but do not lie about guidelines and expect it to go unanswered. —swpb^T 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have the opinion that you have been hectoring me to change my opinion. That amount to harrassment, especially when you were asked many rounds ago to desist. But I would not expect a bully to admit bullying, so I'll not look for any insight from you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on Wikipedia policy, article is not notable without 3rd party reliable sources, WP:RS. Cotton2 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as its entry in Vulnerable Transactions in Corporate Insolvency [1] or Directors’ Decisions and the Law: Promoting Success [2], [3]. It's fairly specialised law, but the RS exist, and afaik there is no deadline. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those demonstrates significant coverage. Try your searches with quotes around them. Your first source mentions the case exactly once, in a footnote, and says nothing about it. As I hope you know, trivial mentions don't count toward GNG. The second source may offer significant coverage, but that would need to be confirmed, and the links you provided can't do that—searches for various forms of the case name turn up nothing. I have to wonder, did you not expect anyone to look at the links you posted? —swpb^T 18:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did expect people to look, yes, but I also expected them to have a fucking clue. The first reference mentions all of its cases as footnotes. That is how it is structured. A narrative text with footnotes to supporting cases. Quite a conventional model for a law book. You can probably spare me your counter-opinion, but I guess you won't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See again: trivial mentions don't count toward GNG. Period. Are we supposed to imagine that the footnoted case is the source of the legal doctrine in the body text, or just an example of it? It doesn't say, and so we can't assume. Then try on Wikipedia:Civility. The closer will weigh arguments by their soundness, not by their volume, or their level of rage. —swpb^T 18:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pity the poor closer, having to read through this crap. You affect to not having a clue about the way in which common law works: cases informing specific and often very narrow and technical points of law; caselaw being described and referenced to narrative by footnotes. In your estimation, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co would be 'trivial' because Treitel on The Law of Contract has only a single footnote to it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"specific and often very narrow and technical points of law" does not notability make: shall I point you to our notability guidelines again? Of course a narrow legal precedent can be notable, and many are, but there is absolutely nothing to show that this one is. If that other case had the complete lack of reliable, significant sourcing this one has, it would be non-notable; but that clearly isn't the case. For your notes on fallacies to avoid, add WP:WHATABOUTX. —swpb^T 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, "specific and often very narrow and technical points of law" does not notability deny. Indeed its specificity, narrowness and technical nature does not speak at all to its notability, as any rational inspection of WP:N would ascertain. We have multiple RS in the areas of insolvency / duties of directors pointing to this case, which amounts to significant coverage sufficient to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Our sources are reliable. Our sources are secondary. Our sources are independent of the subject. But hey, I'm here all night. Entertain me. Point me to this unicorn policy which equates specificity with non-notability, if that's the best you have. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"its specificity, narrowness and technical nature does not speak at all to its notability" I couldn't agree more. Of course, a "keep" argument requires positive evidence of notability; there's no converse condition where the "delete" argument is expected to prove a negative. As to sources being reliable, independent, and secondary, that's fine, but you conspicuously leave out that other word in GNG: significant. —swpb^T 19:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well yes, if you ignore the bit where I said We have multiple RS in the areas of insolvency / duties of directors pointing to this case, which amounts to significant coverage sufficient to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's your case all over: fingers in ears saying "la la la can't hear you". --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Significance" is a per-source property: you don't get to "significant coverage" by adding up trivial mentions, no matter how many you have. This is how GNG has always worked. If you don't like that, you need to take it up on the guideline talk page. —swpb^T 19:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do you obviate significant coverage by dismissing it as trivial. What are you holding out for? A complete book dedicated to this one case? Do I need to take you through it again. Enough reliable coverage to write an article without independent research. See above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough reliable coverage" is simply false, by all standards but yours. I already explained why your two new sources don't demonstrate GNG, and that seems to be all you've got. —swpb^T 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"by all standards but yours". As if anyone but you has actually opined on the matter. I get that you don't find any of the three sources compelling, but you don't seem to be able to articulate what would suffice: and I very much think that you're sufficiently wedded to this Quixotic AfD that nothing'll move you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two. Three links, but two sources. I guess you were hoping I'd miss that. And there is, of course, no basis for the attack that nothing would "move" me; you just haven't found anything that does. —swpb^T 20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be 'forgetting' the reference in the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagishsimon, according to the Vulnerable Transactions in Corporate Insolvency book, it looks like this case was unreported. In most American jurisdictions, unreported cases don't have precedential value. Did this case set a precedent that affected the outcome of other cases? If yes, can you cite two or three cases that rely upon Bednash v Hearsey? If this case did affect the outcome of other cases, then my vote will be to keep. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to a database which would enable me to find such things, NCFF. But my logic is: if the case is of no precedential value, why is it listed & discussed in books of insolvency / directoral duties? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In legal academia (and sometimes in court cases), jurists and scholars will occasionally cite unpublished or unreported cases (i.e. cases without precedential value) if the case involved a unique or interesting facts, or if the case applied legal rules in an interesting manner. I only have access to databases that list cases from the United States, and it doesn't look like this case has had any impact over here. I checked HeinOnline's database of law journals, but that also doesn't show much discussion about this case. The Belcher piece (cited in this article) may say something about this cases' impact, but the article is behind a paywall and I can't access it. Does it say anything about this case's lasting impact? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, fwiw, here's more info on the reference in the article pointing to Legal Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, March 2008, pp. 46–67 DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2007.00072.x ‘Something distinctly not of this character’: how Knightian uncertainty is relevant to corporate governance. The paragraph pointing to this case reads:

Insolvency law is another area where directors are expected to consider both probability and risk. Under s 214(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 directors can become liable for wrongful trading if the company continues to trade and ‘. . . at some time before the commencement of the winding up of the company, [a director] knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation’. Personal liability and disqualification are possible consequences of wrongful trading. In several disqualification cases arising out of wrongful trading the courts have held directors to be unfit on the ground that they took unwarranted risks with creditors’ money. [55]

and the citation in the paper is 55. Re Living Images Ltd [1996] BCC 112, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Ashcroft (No 2) 2000 WL 877739, Re Richborough Furniture Ltd [1996] 1 BCLC 507, Re DGA (UK) Ltd 2001 WL 482928. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per Tagishsimon and other relevant assessment. I do not have the access to UK databases or Westlaw, but it is an appellate-level decision that appears to have value as precedent. I'd suggest posting at WP:Law and see if there are folks who have better access to UK source material. Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think any court case that can reasonably set a significant legal precedent is notable. South Nashua (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an important legal issue resolved, in a major appellate court. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2016 (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.