Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. v. Brandt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus (10 keep, 8 delete, 1 merge), thus kept, with condolences to Zordrac. In the words of John Bender, "Screws fall out all the time; the world is an imperfect place." — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:04, Dec. 26, 2005

[edit] U.S. v. Brandt

*Delete - this is already included in the Daniel Brandt article. We cannot justify this when we are questioning whether major supreme court cases should be included. This was just another draft dodger. We don't have articles about Sylvester Stallone's draft dodger case, so why should we have one on Daniel Brandt's? Its utterly ridiculous. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - This should be closed since I nominated it and am withdrawing the nomination (I think that's how it worked). After his efforts today, he has no right to privacy at all, so keep this thing, and show the world what he's really like. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Where to start? First of all, I've never noticed any AfD about notability of a USSC case, all of which are of course notable. Even so, the USSC (and any other court) may often cite case law from other jursidictions, so there is certainly no reason that a case from a lower court should not be encyclopedic just because it's from a lower court. I can't tell much about how important this particularly case really has been, but a draft-era case in which someone you so pointedly refer to as a "draft dodger" was cleared by a federal circuit court seems unquestionably notable to me. If Sly had a similar legal case at this level, it should certainly be mentioned in wikipedia (but I see no mention of anything like that). Bikeable 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, this is not a USSC case. It is an appeal of a local court case. Hence it is essentially a local court case, which is decidedly not notable. It had zero media coverage at the time, and has zero usage for anything other than talking about Brandt's biography. Interestingly, and hypocritically, something of actual note, like Wikipedia Watch, which has meaning well and truly beyond Brandt, is apparently on the road to deletion. There is more than 1 thing wrong with that logic. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • An "appeal of a local court case" is essentially a local court case, and therefore non-notable? What about Roe v. Wade? Essentially no cases start at the USSC; they are all appeals of (more) local cases. In this case a federal appeals court took a case of the US government against a private citizen; this is hardly a "local court case". It got no media attention in 1970? How do we know? Whether it has been an important precedent in draft law I am not qualified to judge, but it is not obviously non-notable. Finally, comparing this to any other AfD is just silly, unless you're comparing it to another appeals-level decision. I'm afraid there's some politicking here I don't get, since I don't even know who Daniel Brandt is, and I don't particularly care; I'm basing my opinion entirely on the article and the fact that a federal appeals court decision on a draft-era case looks notable to me. Bikeable 06:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Good point. "We don't know" whether this had any media attention or was notable. Almost certainly it didn't. Unless it definitely did get media attention or was used in some cases then it is most certainly not notable. As for the Roe v. Wade case above, that obviously had some claims to notoriety. What claims does this have? I'll tell you what - in 2004 in Australia there was a High Court case of R v Vizard against Steve Vizard, who was the founder of Full Frontal, a comedy series, and also a prominent lawyer. He was found not guilty. There was also a Supreme Court trial of R v Trinh & McLean where 2 teenagers were found guilty of the murder of 2 Filipino prostitutes that they said they were forced to kill because of threats from the Hells Angels who are the largest organised crime group operating out of Darwin. Now, which of these 2 is the most notable? Steve Vizard's one was in a higher court than Trinh & McLean's. Or, wait, what about R v Murdoch? That one wasn't in the High Court either. Maybe that one isn't notable. LOL. I can think of dozens of High Court cases that are not remotely notable and haven't been used for anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems OK. -- JJay 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Already included in the Daniel Brandt article. Beside, I don't know about his article, but this is breach of Brandt's privacy. Kaliz 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Very good point. I guess that the problem here is that his privacy is already breached by Google when they publicly released his name, and then secondly by Wikipedia creating an article about him. So the damage has already been done. This article does not further damage his privacy. Indeed, there is an argument that Google had already breached his privacy and hence that Wikipedia did not worsen the existing privacy breaches, and hence did nothing wrong. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How so? The facts of the case are certainly public record, and anyone could look up these details in the court proceedings. Bikeable 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. USSC oops, 9th Circuit case. Informative article about sth of real import to peoples' lives with potential broad application. Billbrock 05:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) corrected Billbrock 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, that's not true. This was an appeal of a local court case. There is a whopping great difference between this kind of thing and a trial of murder or something like that. Do we include every single appeal in here? It's absurd. People are still questioning the notability of something like R v Trinh & McLean, the most important case in Australia of 2004, yet someone is saying that this unheard of case should be included in here, when it has no significance to anything, other than to Brandt's personal biography. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. SCOTUS cases are inherently notable. And Zordrac's argument is absurd; the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over very few things, almost EVERYTHING starts off as a lower court case. Name the dozen most important cases in US legal history, and I'll bet 10 of them started off as appeals of lower court cases. Zordrac doesn't understand how the US legal system works. Firebug 07:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither notable nor relevant. At best, merge into Daniel Brandt. -Sean Curtin 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable in any other respect other than its relation to Daniel Brandt's biography. Indeed, I question the motives of the original writer. --Agamemnon2 08:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete don't see a problem with documenting legal cases, however don't feel that it is notable enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Again, not a Supreme Court case. This was merely an appeal from an administrative hearing. The decision has not been cited by any court since 1976. Whether or not Brandt himself is notable, the case is not. (unsigned comment by Paul Stokstad 19:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Brandt-cruft. I'm still waiting for Wikipedia v. Brandt :)  Grue  18:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I wrote the original to fill in a red link on an article. Obscure content isn't harmful. This is a public record and certainly not a "breach of privacy." The reason the case has not been cited since 1976 because Conscription in the United States ended in 1973. I am not going to go to the mat on this one, but I find the rash of deletionism in general lately a little disconcerting. Jokestress 21:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think all recorded cases are notable. While this is not very notable, in a few years when wiki has 10m articles, hopefully all these cases will be in. Oh and by the way, this is not an invasion of privacy, it is a matter of bloody public record which is the exact opposite of private information. jucifer 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, my Dad had an almost identical case to Brandt's. My Dad is extraordinarily non-notable, his case had 0 press coverage, other than in generally reporting on the combined sum of the cases, which did not specifically mention his name. Yes, you can go down to the court and request a copy of it, and you are not breaking any laws by publishing it up here. But most people consider such things to be an invasion of privacy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think Brandt's notability or privacy are pertient issues to this discussion. The notability of this particular case should be the matter at hand. Aside from being an incident in Brandt's life (and it is discussed in his biography article), I see zero notability. There is no evidence presented that this case is particularly significant, or significant at all, that it established any notable legal precedent, or that it has been referred to in any way in any legal or historical writings. Gamaliel 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever isn't already in Daniel Brandt to Daniel Brandt --Alf melmac 12:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Brandt has recently become very notable. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep // paroxysm (n) 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete If I had my 'druthers I'd keep this article and delete the Daniel Brandt, but since we seem to be stuck with the bio, this article is essentially redundant FRS 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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.