Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis v Averay

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 redirect to Mistakes_in_English_law#Inter_praesentes. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis v Averay

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

There are numerous case cites to this legal decision, however, beyond that, there doesn't appear to be coverage outside of case law to establish that this court case meets GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is cited and linked to in Mistakes in English law. Is that perhaps enough? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, since Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear: I wasn't asking if it should be kept on that basis, but rather, redirected. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sufficiently conversant with UK law to assess the importance of this case, but for those who are and who want to take a look, there is a page with information on it here. For those wishing to research further, the cite appears to be Lewis v. Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 (UK). TJRC (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been nil participation since the last two relists.The participants have just commented but not !voted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable or Redirect to Mistakes in English law. L3X1 (distant write) 14:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence: possibly Keep (see pages 560-1 of [1]) or Redirect and Merge into Mistakes_in_English_law#Inter_praesentes. I already copied the text so, no real need to merge, just redirect. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2017 (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.