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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arklow vs. MacLean[edit]

I don't know if this is notable, and I couldn't find anything in WP:OUTCOMES covering court cases, but if it isn't notable, it should be deleted. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure whether this is notable in New Zealand law either. I suspect it isn't particularly notable, despite having gone all the way to the Privy Council, and I looked for references to it without finding anything other than legal documents. The case being so old may account for lack of coverage in online newspapers though. However, the clincher for me is that the article was written by someone directly involved in the case.-gadfium 01:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 01:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noted another attempt to attack Arklow. I draw your attention to the following.
Wikipedia chat- Legal disputes are to be strictly avoided. Picture for a moment, a minor celebrity (we'll say an author) decides to Google him or herself just to find a few reviews of their work. Wikipedia is often in the initial ten Google results. So they click on the link to find some misinformation that could have been added with innocent intentions. The author is unaware of guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:NLT, and complains on the talk page, making a legal threat. Wikipedia has just lost an author, someone who could greatly contribute to Wikipedia, and could possibly (though not likely) face some form of legal action.
Note the Arklow litigation involves $3.43b. To date the defendants have tried everything. If I have to take legal action against someone I will do that for either reason; The person is ignorant and has no right to interfere, or may be working for some other interest group and so litigation against them will expose either.
The information on Arklow is correct. It is not bias, in fact it does not even cover the fraud of evidence, the murder of one of my witnesses New Zealand Herald Story - Island mourns young leader of vision Saturday July 10, 1999 By Rosaleen MacBrayne. Arklow is a complex legal issue and is open to review by any of the 40 strong legal team for the 17 defendants. It has already been looked at by Professor Rick Bigwood of Auckland University. If there were any problems they would appear on the talk page. Any unwarranted attack I promise will lead to an immediate writ being served to uncover the thinking and motive behind the attack. --WingateChristopher 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening Wikipedia or its contributors with legal action? That's not a good idea.... Marjaliisa 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, That bit that was quoted was found (I won't even think about how he found it) as part of my admin coaching, and shouldn't be understood as policy. I wasn't making an attempt to attack anyone, I was trying to complete my assignment, which was written before this article came to my attention. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with gadfium, little public information on notibility and it looks like there may be practical problems bringing it up to scratch (espcially in the NPOV) area. - SimonLyall 04:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The case actually seems to be very modestly notable in Commonwealth law (in the legal world), splitting hairs over when and whether a party becomes a fiduciary; it's an example of a kind of thing that legal practitioners need to know. However, I don't see much to suggest that it is substantially notable generally, it's somewhere around the borderline, IMHO. The bigger problem is that the current article is wildly inappropriate for the importance of the material, the main editor has just been indef blocked, and he appears to have been an actual party to the litigation, carrying his view of things to a wider world. Unless someone neutral with knowledge/interest in this area steps up, I don't see how we get to a reasonable legal article. Delete it now, but a new article on the topic should be considered on its own merits. Studerby 09:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, work by a blocked author. WP is not a battle ground, historical record, or soapbox meshach 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/rewrite, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge - not of law. If it is a notable legal case (IANAL, but the eveidence of it seems scarce), then it needs to be rewritten with a NPOV. Malathos 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nnon-notable case, possible copyright violation, and soapbox. Bearian 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are far better cases to quote regarding what makes up a fiduciary duty, both in New Zealand and in the common law at large. As it stands, the article states the facts (as perceived by a party), and barely touches on the law. It really isn't a notable case, and it doesn't provide the kind of explanation of how it affects the law as it stands.

By the by, I think that Wikipedia should be an Encyclopedia or law, amongst everything else. Unfortunately, even the most important cases (espcially New Zealand ones) don't seem to be covered, and random fact scenarios like this don't really help.--Matthew Proctor 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't appear to be a notable case. And please wikify your links. Mindraker 12:51, 25 October 2007 (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.