Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd

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. There's clear consensus here that a standalone article currently isn't warranted. The argument that there's no merge-worthy content has not been rebutted, and as such deletion is the only possible outcome. If the creator or someone else wanted to recreate this in draftspace they would be welcome, but I see no purpose in draftifying a single sentence. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd

Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

It doesn't seem like a firm ruling has been made on what constitutes notability RE: law and legal cases, but if the contents of this article represent all that is said in the source about this case then it doesn't seem particularly notable or worthwhile to include. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There do appear to be some hits in textbooks. I would like to see more of an effort to find these. BD2412 T 17:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The best source I could find is Barry Allan, "Trust Me, I'm Your Husband: Undue Influence and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge" (2006) 11:2 Otago L Rev 247, which is available on HeinOnline. There are some extended comments on the case in that article but nothing major anywhere else I could see. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the article on Undue influence - I don't think the case stands be itsself but contributes ot the caselaw surrounding the term, and should be included within the article NealeWellington (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft namespace. The author, Kiwisheriff, created many such articles and has returned, often much later, to flesh many of them out. This article has been in a substub state for over six years and putting it in draft namespace will give a six-month time limit for it to be improved before deletion.-gadfium 01:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Undue influence per nom and NealeWellington. The case contributes to the topic but lacks sufficient notability to stand on its own.--ERAMnc 07:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no content to be merged. The entire article reads: "Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd [1998] 1 NZLR 674; (1997) 8 TCLR 178 is a cited case regarding undue influence". That tells us nothing about the topic of undue influence, or what the case was about. Sandstein 17:06, 9 November 2021 (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.