Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Halverson

Elizabeth Halverson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A WP:BLP nightmare: Non-notable person whose only claim to notability is that she's been involved in a disciplinary action over her work as a judge (in a minor US court), with a some negative coverage in local media. The fact that judges in Nevada are elected for office unfortunately causes much of her personal information to be public, so there are plenty of "reliable sources" around – but no notability that I can see. This article serves no other purpose than mud-slinging. It is precisely the kind of topic that Wikipedia really, really should have no business dealing with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just editing the article because I followed a talk page entry, and was intrigued. Meh, it's either way as far as notability goes. The only thing notable about her is the accusations imo. I'd also like to note that I hadn't heard of her until I saw the article. I think that we can do the article and follow neutrality easily, using WP:Policy. Although it appears there are editors who are personally involved with the case... I think I can, with policy on my side, create a neutral article. But really, I don't care, I was just intrigued. I won't stand in the way of deletion, that's for sure! Beam 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not personally involved in the "case", I just object to your additions of POV style writing. Proxy User (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for your baseless accusations. Please goto the talk page and defend your accusations, instead of repeating them in places not meant for such pettiness. Beam 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! You made a baseless accusation against me above and now pretend to chide me for the same thing? What balls! You need to calm down. This is not the place for you to attack me, my Talk Page would be more appropriate. Proxy User (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, don't fight with each other here. You're both decent, fair-minded Wikipedia editors, no reason to throw accusations around. Just say here if and why you want the article deleted, and be done with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep there are no BLP issues, the article is well sourced, and doesn't contain libel. The behavior in the censure runs over several years. I would say judicial misconduct subjects are a worthy topic. Notability doesnt mean the best or the fastest, or the smartest. It just means that mainstream, reliable media has taken notice of you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While I think there is no reason that this person should not have a Wiki bio, certain editors wish to make it into a POV soapbox. Serious WP:COATRACK issues. Proxy User (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak deleteHas some WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK issues. A judge at this level generally would not have a Wikipedia article. I feel this does count as "one incident" since the previous every teacher, or every doctor who gets some disciplinary hearing. Edison (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Her judicial position doesn't make her notable, and this incident doesn't seem to me to have lasting signficance. The article appears to exist mainly to embarrass her, which is a problem per WP:BLP, and I don't think her notability is great enough for us to need an article about her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, doubtful that a judge at this level would normally achieve notability, and none is shown other than for this scandal. We're not a judicial misconduct database. (And I'm starting to question the whole point of electing judges anyway, which practically no other country does. This is partly why, I imagine.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator and Dhartung seem to be arguing that she shouldn't be notable because Nevada shouldn't elect judges. I'm sure she's gotten more press coverage than she would have if her position were appointive, but the question for us is whether she is notable, not whether Nevada should change its laws or whether the mass media frequently pay too much attention to scandal while ignoring more important topics. JamesMLane t c 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uhm, no, that is not what I said. My point was that the election and judicial documentation system create an artificial impression of notability, owing to the technical availability of public information, which however stands in no proportion to "notability" in the true sense, i.e. a well-documented public perception of importance beyond that short-term issue of gossip and mudslinging. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 28 May 2008 (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.

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 (non-admin closure). None of the parties to this discussion disagree that there are multiple sources in independent publications about Rebecca Snyder; the question of her notability hinges on whether those sources are trivial mentions only related to one client, or if, instead, they demonstrate clear, durable notability. A strong consensus is established below that the coverage does in fact add up to notability that exceeds the standards of WP:N. This article is currently not a coatrack for Khadr; despite most of Snyder's notability deriving from this one event, the article is focused on her. Darkspots (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca S. Snyder

Rebecca S. Snyder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is not notable, per WP:N. Bstone (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Notability is not inherited. Bstone (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- I started this article, about half an hour ago. I am still working on it. Nominator placed a speedy deletion tag on it, four minutes after I started it. I challenged that tag. I want to assume good faith, but I am afraid I really can't reconcile a nomination for deletion so shortly after the article was started with the wikipedia's stated goal of reaching decisions through consensus -- not turning the wikipedia into a battleground. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I do agree here, both in terms of overzealous use of WP:CSD#A7 and also with AfDing articles so very quickly after they are created. ~ mazca ^talk 14:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, she is a notable lawyer who has taken on one of the most notable legal cases in the past ten years. Notability is certain. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. e.g. this search. Individual is thus notable per WP:N (disclosure - I declined the original speedy by the nom) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Only one of the hits in the foregoing link refer to her. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the first link technically links to multiple sources - perhaps not my finest piece of external linking Fritzpoll (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep absolutely passes WP:N (added by User:Legotech)
• Keep Even the incomplete version that was originally tagged as a speedy had sources from major newspapers in two countries. . DGG (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Omar_Khadr Vote changed from keep after doing some fact-checking; this article looks more and more like a WP:Coatrack.Certainly not "one of the most notable legal cases in the past ten years", not even one of the more notable cases on the court's docket that day but she is notable. L0b0t (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC) L0b0t (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Frizpoll. A lot of publicity, many good sources, certainly is a notable lawyer. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. She has not recived signifiant coverge. Any coverage that mentions her, mentions her in passing as part of coverage of Omar Khadr. Notability is not inhereted. Moreover (and consequently) this article looks like a WP:COATRACK for Omar Khadr.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, although the article is short it seems adequately referenced and she seems to be moderately notable. If nothing much more can be added that's notable, though, it may be cleaner to merge it to Omar Khadr. (scratch that last bit, Omar Khadr is long enough as it is. ~ mazca ^talk 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm not impressed with Bstone's CSD tagging. The article is by an established editor, and it demonstrates notability beyond question. --Aude (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  My tagging this non-notable article is at issue, not your personal attitude to me nor your personal attitude to the author of the article. Please keep that in mind when you opine in an AfD. Bstone (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• And he is free to offer you constructive criticism, as others in this AfD have, that you acted too hastily and did not assume good faith when an established editor with thousands of edits created a new article. Rather than clean up the article yourself, wait to see the finished product, or ask him to add more references or detail, you immediately jumped to calling for its deletion. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but I disagree with Geo Swan's criticism of the nomination. Contributors should start new articles on their own hard drives or user pages and work on them there. Post them to the namespace only when they can survive AfD. Once it was posted, Bstone was entitled to assess it immediately for notability. JamesMLane t c 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And according to WP:N, "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be."--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. No actual deletion rationale. No reasoning as to why article doesn't meet WP:N. --Smashville^BONK! 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The reasoning, as I understand it, is that there seem to be no references to the subject of the article apart from her connection to a single case for which she is one of the co-counsels. The only references that mention her outside the context of the Khadr case are directories of attorneys (where she can be found alongside all the other lawyers in the U.S.A.). While the Khadr case is certainly worthy of an article, notability is not inherited and it does not follow that one of his attorneys is notable enough to have an article without some notability of her own unconnected to the Khadr case. Another issue facing this article is that it looks like a coatrack for Khadr. Use of POV language like "captive" rather than the actual designation "detainee" or even the vulgate "prisoner"; there was even an unattributed pull quote dropped willy-nilly into the middle section. None of that has any place in an encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The terms "captive" and "prisoner" are both more neutral than the sanitized "detainee" which is a recent invention created for a specific purpose. But again, that's an issue for the talk page, not an AfD. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 01:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• 'Keep Notable counsel, I too would tend to disagree with critics who say it was nominated for sppedy and AfD to quick.BigDunc^Talk 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Can't find any indications that she is not notable, and certainly the nom doesn't elaborate upon anything. Notability established and explained and a couple of independent sources provided in article, so can't support nomination for deletion that doesn't even support itself. --Blechnic (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2008 (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.

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 165_Losses

165_Losses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

this page has absolutely no context whatsoever, it seems like an article of a law, no structure Shoombooly (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia isn't Wikisource. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be a section from a textbook on US tax law, maybe appropriate on Wikiversity or Wikibooks, but not here. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Probably a copyvio, but if it isn't, it still belongs on Wikisource. No prejudice to rewriting the article so it's less law-textbook-y. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a totally unreferenced article with zero verifiability. The author has made only 5 minor edits to Wikipedia: [1] which tells me this was a one time article. Artene50 (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Unreferenced article. Wikipedia is not Wikisource. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: it's unsourced. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Probably a copyvio, and if it isn't it should be on Wikisource, not here.  Asenine  11:34, 28 May 2008 (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.

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 general confusion because it's difficult to figure out to what article(s) the individual comments apply, but at any rate no consensus to delete all of these articles. Any renominations should be made individually, if a merger to the article about the nomination issue fails to find consensus.  Sandstein  19:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enrique Moreno

Enrique Moreno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Note to closing admin: There are multiple "keeps" and "speedy keeps" in this article that originate from two editors. I am partly to blame for this confusion because I added other articles to this afd after it had already begun. In any case, please note each !voter when figuring out the concensus. Thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A bio about an unnotable person that was a pawn in a notable event. This lawyer failed a judicial nomination because of Republican-Democrat politics. This political issue is notable, and there should be an article about this event. However, there should not be a seperate bio for each person that was a pawn in this event. He was one of seventeen lawyers whose nomination falied for this reason. He was not notable before this event, and this one-time event (i.e. WP:BLP1E) should not cause him to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO.

An afd (link) of one of the aforementioned "17" resulted in a keep, but that person is very different. He was notable prior to the failed judicial nomination. He was Governer Gray Davis's secretary of legal affairs and he was a judge in the Calofornia judiciary syetem. This person was not notable prior to the failed nomination, and his failed nomination shouldn't make him notable. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Further update. There's four other failed nominees that are similarly situated, not having notability outside this one event. Either Delete, Merge/Redirect to President Clinton's judicial appointments controversy, or Keep. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Christine Arguello (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Robert Raymar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Allen Snyder (lawyer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Charles "Bud" Stack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep. I am the article's creator. This article should remain for five reasons: 1) A lawyer who was nominated to a court one level below the U.S. Supreme Court meets the notability threshold; 2) A lawyer whose (ultimately unsuccessful) nomination then becomes part of not only an open fight between two parties in the U.S. Senate but also has his name invoked by both the sitting president and the sitting vice president (and presidential candidate) at the time meets the notability threshold; 3) Federal judicial appeals-court nominations have become increasingly controversial, and Moreno is relevant because his name continually has been raised in speeches all throughout this decade by U.S. Sens. Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein as one of 17 non-acted-on nominations in the latter part of Clinton's presidency; 4) Given his still-young age, it's reasonable to think that Moreno may well be renominated to a Fifth Circuit by a future Democratic president; and 5) A Google News search for "Enrique Moreno" and "judge" produces 125 results, so there is some notability there. I don't think this is a BLP1E case at all. As a user said in the previous AFD article referenced above (the article about Barry Goode), "When the "one event" you're known for (assuming that's true) is a major political tussle in the upper house of a national legislature, your notability is not really in question. WP:ONEEVENT was intended for people who get 15 minutes of fame for balancing a hot dog on their nose and the like." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvishunt (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I will respond to each of your points in turn:

1. There are over a hundred judges at that level. Being nominated to that level doesn't establish notability.
2. Being mentionened by the President doesn't move him beyond WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Is an excllent argument for the creation of an article about this controversy, not about each person that was a pawn in this political fight.
4. Is violative of WP:CRYSTAL. Any future nominations can be dealt with when he his actually nominated.
5. The ghits all link to the one event. Your understanding of WP:ONEEVENT is - with my utmost respect - incorrect. Balancing hotdogs on noses and judicial nominations are the same for WP:ONEEVENT purposes. We don't decide the societal importance of people. We only look to see if that person has recieved significant coverage outside of one-time events.

---brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The argument that Moreno and the other judges are non notable is really outside precedent. Take the example of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Marshak. That is an ex-presidential aide, who happened to be in bed with Vice President when he died. There are zero biographical details beyond the one event. Putting up all of these judges would be tantamount to WP:PTEST. MrPrada (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable person. Fails WP:N. Undeath (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. One familiar with the subject matter cannot read the articles as they are now and come away with that assessment. On individual merit alone, each has inherent and demonstrated notability verified by second party sources, and easily meeting WP:BIO. MrPrada (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Prominent jurist. Sources abound, 125+ nontrivial second party on the judgeship alone. Perhaps someone should create a bot to do ghits for AfDs. No, I am not suggesting we keep per WP:GHITS, but I do think there is notability outside of 1E. MrPrada (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Prada: None of the ghits that you provide show notability outside of the one event (the unsuccessful nomination). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think you're making too strict a ruling on BLP1E, and here's why. To me, "one event" would be the nomination failing. Or being filibustered. Or him being nominated to begin with. Not taking all three together over a period of 1999 to 20001. Most of those 125 that I listed (and there are more) are from major publications, and include plenty of biographical data to flesh out the rest of his life beyond the context of one event. Therefor, not only do they demonstrate notability for a series of events (rather then BLP1E), they also provide notability for his earlier career. Furthermore, there are several in there which take place after the nomination, and showed up because I used "Enrique Moreno Judge" in the search string, and they make reference to the failed nomination while discussing another topic, a key indicator that he has lasting notability. MrPrada (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Prada: Your defintion of BLP1E would preclude its applicability in the most classic of BLP1E situations. Take for example Sean Bell, now a redirect to Sean Bell case. Google him and you get - yes - nine million - hits. As many ghtis as he gets, they all stem from one event. Yet, if you apply your argument to Sean Bell, BlP1E doesn't apply to that case either. You can divide that one event into multiple events. 1 - the incident, 2 - the officers' indictment, 3 - the trial, 4 - the acquittal, 5 - the subsequent protests, 6 - the (soon to be) civil lawsuit. Therefore, even if one event stretches out for a few years, that doesn't mean that the event is outside the realm of WPBLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are partially correct on both points, but still do not prevent a convincing reason to delete his biography. From a notability standpoint, Sean Bell, like Scott Thomas Beauchamp, was not notable outside of the 1E that created a controversy. Moreno seems to be. From the 1E standpoint, there are many instances from tragedies to battles that receive a single article. Would each judge's nomination therefor get its own article outside of the biography? No. The sensible place would be in a biography of the judicial candidate. In this particular instance, you have a judge who is nominated, and returned by the Senate (1E), and then renominated (another event), as I stated above. These seperate events are not all connected to one event on one day, like a tragedy or a battle. Arguing otherwise is a stretch. There is no need, reason, or policy to support deletion here. The follow on stories that have mentioned Moreno recently confirm that he meets WP:NTEMP for more then just the confirmation. Nothing can be clearer then BLP1E itself: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted Sean Bell, and Scott Thomas, are chronicled in relation to the event that made them notable. We read little about who they are, where they come from, etc. On the other hand, Moreno receives a wider breath of coverage in the articles about his confirmation, indicating coverage beyond the context of the nomination itself, and warranting a seperate biography. MrPrada (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• In responding, I would point to your bolded commments. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. None of the sources gave him coverage outside of the failed nomination.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not entirely accurate. In the first five pages of my google query alone, we have Ex-pick for judge praises nominee El Paso's Moreno backs Martinez, San Antonio Express News, El Paso Jury Awards $55.5 Million For Victim of Asbestos Exposure, Business Wire, Flier, arrested after incident in air, awarded $27.5M, USA Today, Woman Wins $27.5 Million in Racial Profile Suit Against Southwest Airlines, Insurance Journal, Ex-German Soldiers Sue U.S. Companies over caner, Reuters, Court of Inquiry, KFOX El Paso, El Paso Man Settles Claim for $7.6 Million Against El Paso Natural Gas Company., PR Newswire, Survivors in trailer smuggling seek visas, Dallas Morning News, Trailer victims staying in U.S., Two dozen immigrants from truck may work as prosecutors prepare case, Dallas Morning News, Baron & Budd, P.C., Announces $55.5 Million Asbestos Award in El Paso., PR Newswire, El Paso Jury Awards $6,050,000, to Family of School Custodian Who Died of Mesothelioma, PR Newswire, Lawsuit says radar gear hurt NATO trainees at Fort Bliss, San Antonio Express-News, none of which even mention the nomination. My search also did not take into account 139 stories from the El Paso Times, not about the nomination, and I did not bother checking the six or seven other papers that cover that metropolitan area, not to mention all of the other Texas newspapers (since this guy is obviously a major political player behind the scenes). Futhermore, from America's Top Lawyers, we have him as a Texas Super Lawyers 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003, and a dozen or so book mentions outside of the judgeship (some of which are law briefs, admittedly), including Who's Who Among Hispanic Americans. So reliable sources do cover the person in the context of more then one particular event, many of them in a nontrivial sense. MrPrada (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • None of the links that you provided were coverage of him. He was mentioned in passing as being part of a notable case. Open any newspaper and you will get quotes from lawyers representing their clients and off-hand mentions that so-and-so is the attorney in this case. A lawyer involved in a case that makes the news doesn't become notable from the subsequent ghits created by his one-line quotes and the newspapers' off-hand mention of his name. The coverge required for WP:BIO must be non-trivial and the coverage must be beyond one event.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • In your last comment, you stated that none of the 125 ghits for "Enrique Moreno judge" addressed something beyond the nomination. I was simply demonstrating that was incorrect, there is no goalpost for notability to be moved. As to the concern that none were specifically about him, a few of the registration-ones are more then trivial mentions, and I didn't even start to comb the 139 mentions from the El Paso Times, and I haven't bothered searching in El Diario de El Paso, the largest Spanish language newspaper, which I'm sure contains more. Plus, most of the lawyers you references, when you open up the newspaper, aren't being nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Remember, we're excluding the other 125 articles solely related to his nomination by the President, most of which explain in great detail Moreno's notable legal career and background, indicating those articles cover more then just 1E. The burden here is not on the keeps, that is the default from no consensus, but I think I've added enough to allay any concerns a and make it obvious that this person received significant coverage outside of one-time events. We will see what other editors have to say. MrPrada (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • When coverage outside of one event is required it means that the actual coverage must take place outside of the one event. Covering his background during the one event doesn't suffice to move it outside one event. Whenever you cover someone you mention his background. Sean Bell's background also got coverage during the Sean Bell incident. That doesn't mean that Sean Bell has moved beyond BLP1E. He is a BLP1E because all significant coverage that he recieved originated from one event. Same is with these lawyers, all the significant coverage they have recieved had been from one event. And just like Sean Bell has been (correctly) redirected to Sean Bell shooting, these judges should be redireced to President Clinton's judicial appointments controversy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd say that Prada's comments capture exactly why the fight over Clinton judicial nominations weren't a onetime event and as a result shouldn't be classified or viewed as such. It really was a series of fights that took place over a more than five-year period, involving many different players at many different times, with vastly different outcomes. I'd argue that each one was an individual event. Some other thoughts on the comments raised so far:

1. There are indeed over 100 appellate level judges, but these are lifetime appointments. In a given year, a president nominates 5 to 10 of these at most. Nomination *is* a huge deal--there aren't hundreds and hundreds of them a year (or even in an eight-year presidency).
2. I should have elaborated on the president mentioning one's name. It's true that if the president congratulates Podunk High School for winning the state spelling bee, that doesn't establish notability. But, when the mention by the president (and the VP, who's also the presidential candidate) is part of a Senate fight over his nomination, the notability has standard has been met, in my opinion.
3. Brewcrewer makes a fine point about WP:CRYSTAL, and I withdraw that argument.
4. Moreno has more notability than just the judicial nomination. I'll add that shortly.User:Jarvishunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.78.206 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update. I've created a stub - President Clinton's judicial appointments controversy. As an alternate to !voting delete, one can !vote to redirect/merge (if merged the bio would have to be trimmed). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Christine Arguello: Former Deputy AG of Colorado, amongst other things. Keep. MrPrada (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Christine Arguello. She's Colorado's former Deputy Attorney General, she was nominated to the Tenth Circuit in 2000, and she's now expected to be nominated to a U.S. District Court seat by President Bush any day now (see this article here from May 17: http://cbs4denver.com/local/Judgeships.white.house.2.726486.html). Arguello meets the notability standard by a lot. This isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL (or B; this is breaking news that's happened in the last week. Jarvishunt (talk)
• Robert Raymar: Former Deputy AG of New Jersey, amongst other things. Keep. MrPrada (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep of Robert Raymar. He's the former Deputy Attorney General for New Jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvishunt (talk • contribs)
• From the article: "During Bill Clinton's presidency, Snyder represented Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey during the Whitewater controversy. In addition, Snyder represented actress Elizabeth Taylor, successfully blocking an ABC-TV docudrama about her life, according to a September 2004 article about Hogan & Hartson in the Washingtonian magazine. And, Snyder represented Netscape as its chief corporate attorney during its antitrust fight against Microsoft." And this followed by the information about the nomination. Recommend speedy keep of Allen Snyder (lawyer). MrPrada (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep of Allen Snyder. In addition to his failed nomination to the D.C. Circuit (which easily is the single most powerful court in the U.S. after the Supreme Court--it's more powerful than even the other appellate courts), Snyder represented Elizabeth Taylor in her litigation against ABC-TV re: a docudrama of her life, he was a figure in the Whitewater controversy by representing Bruce Lindsey, and he represented Netscape in its litigation against Microsoft. Snyder is not a WPBLP1E case at all. Jarvishunt (talk)
• Charles "Bud" Stack : Subject of four seperate NYT articles, just in its current WP form. I'm sure there is much more to tell. Keep. MrPrada (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Almost any judicial nominee to an appellate court or nominee for a cabinet post has some inherent notability, stemming from their nomination. The five failed judges in question have all had storied careers as jurists, litigators, professors, etc., I cannot see how we would delete as non notable. MrPrada (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Reading the article, I can't understand how you could state it doesn't assert notability. Obviously it does, per President Clinton's judicial appointments controversy. The legitimate question that's been raised is whether he is notable beyond this one event. MrPrada (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. In other words since it's a WP:BLP1E it has failed to meet WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update. I added more on Moreno's professional career, including some news accounts on large judgments that he has won that give more credence to his notability. Jarvishunt (talk)
• Speedy keep of Charles "Bud" Stack. When you raise $7 million for the Democratic party and get nominated to a Circuit Court of Appeals seat and appear in a multitude of New York Times articles, there's really no further question about your notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvishunt (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article asserts notability in its opening sentence. WPBLP1E has no bearing on this, and it seems rather sweeping to assert that these legal people have no other claim to notability. Clinton didn't pick random passers-by as nominees. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MrPrada (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —MrPrada (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MrPrada (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrPrada (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There appears to be a good faith effort underway to improve the article, and the discussion has morphed into discussion of multiple merge and delete suggestions. Let the dust settle and re-nominate if the article's issues can't be solved outside the AfD process. Townlake (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• No basis for meeting the notability standard of WP:BIO was given. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We'll have to agree to disagree then, because no basis for not meeting the standard of WP:BIO has or can be given. :) MrPrada (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The burden is on those claiming notability to establish notability. We all know you can't expect someone who claims that something doesn't exist to prove that it doesn't exist. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Discussions default to keep, not to delete. There is plenty provided above which would establish notability. The burden is on you to refute it. Thus far, you've claimed that the sources provided only covered one event (which I showed to be incorrect), that they only were trivial (ditto), etc., so the keeps have done their due diligence.MrPrada (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The fact that the initial burden falls on the creator of the article has nothing to do with default to keep after the discussion. For the simple fact that you cannot expect or request someone to prove that something isn't. Therefore, just stating that it's notable and then requesting that it be refuted makes absolutly no sense. And a !vote that says its just notable without backing it up is - with all due respect - valueless. You, Prada, have obviously attempted to back up the notability, and therefore you have to be reckoned with. But my initial point above was that "good faith effort underway to improve the article" is not a basis for notability and non-deletion, and it doesn't even meet the discussion threshold. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete.Well, sadly good faith is not enough to keep an article from being deleted. This man has not done anything notable enough to be on Wikipedia. It almost seems like the creator of the article is Ernique(just saying). Basically, the man is no-notable.Gears Of War 21:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• A presidential nomination/appointment is a big deal, especially to the second highest court of the land, the United States court of appeals, each district of which is responsible for 4-5 states and has only a dozen judges more or less. WP:HOLE is an unacceptable reason to delete. This is an encyclopedia. MrPrada (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ha funny. What is he doing now then? And secondly apparently I my comments are not the only ones who want this article deleted, so that means something is wrong. I am also not the last person to say this guy was non-notable. Sadly he did not play a big a part as you make it put to be.Gears Of War 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gears of War, look under Moreno's professional career--since the failed nomination, he's been a lead (or sole) attorney on legal teams that won two very high-profile class-action lawsuits (see references). That's notability entirely apart from the nomination to the Fifth Circuit. Jarvishunt (talk)

Sadly no matter what you try to show me, I just think that the article should be delted, and thats never gonna change, Gears out.Gears Of War 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thus far, there have been no explanations to "non notable", tantamount to WP:ATA—WP:IDONTKNOWIT, which makes me incredulous. Also, for someone seeking to become an administrator forming a consensus is based on evaluation the arguments of others and coming to an agreement, so perhaps you should look at what he's trying to show you, you may change your mind after all. MrPrada (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ha! You guys crack me up. Going into my own personal conversations to try to change my mind. I have considered his case and I dont appreciate you going into my personal conversations and trying to piss me off. I know what I said and I listened to all of your pleads. The dude is non-notable. And yet when some else said he was non-notable, no one jumped on him like this! But sadly that always happens to me. I will not change my mind, and if the article is so good, it will be saved after all.Gears Of War 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think Gears gave a coherent and valid reasone for deletion - "This man has not done anything notable enough to be on Wikipedia." A long explanation filled with alphabetical abbreviations isn't required to state an opinion around here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Actually, my comment on forming consensus was in response to "Sadly no matter what you try to show me ..." which followed Jarvishunt's asserstion of notability to Gears. I have addressed each editor that has stated an nn-concern in a similar manner, so I apologie to Gears if he feels that he was jumped on. However, I would be doing him as much of a disservice by not pointing out the spirit of consensus (which is what has lead me to his talk page, wehre I am currently typing a response) as he would be by choosing not to evaluate Jarvhishunt's arguments. MrPrada (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Then delete my two cent, so be it They think I am just being ignorant basically take away my reasoning.Gears Of War 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was neither asking you to change your opinion nor consider anything contrary to your opinion, nor did I imply we discount it. I merely suggested an exercise in consensus building after you mentioned "It doesnt matter what you show me ", which would be to at least evaluate the information. Its completely optional. MrPrada (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• For the sake of Peter dude, the reason I said that was to say that no matter how much he argued with me I had made my decision and would not change my mind.Gears Of War 22:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think Gears can be blamed for stating he will not change his mind. This page has pretty much hashed out all the possible arguments, pro and con. If Gears has read the applicable articles and analyzed both arguments on both sides, he shouldn't be jumped on to change his mind, and be accused on being a non-consensus-builder. Indeed, if any side isn't working towards a consensus its the keep side. After nominating the articles for deletion, I felt that it would be a fair compromise to merge into President Clinton's judicial appointments controversy instead of deleting. Yet, the keep side isn't budging. They want a full bio on each and every person that ever went through an unsuccessful attempt to become a federal judge. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would surmise that the controversy certainly does deserve its own article, much like the Bush administration judges Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, etc. However, at least in the case of these five (and most of the others that I read articles on today), in my opinion there is sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. As daughter articles they would only compliment the main controversy article, which in time could well become a featured topic. The fact that it is the Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the U.S., is really what seals the deal for me with regard to keeping the biographies. Is Joseph H. Boardman notable outside of being Chief of the Federal Railroad Administration? Or Raymond P. Martinez beyond being Deputy Chief of Protocl for the State Department? Possibly. And I submit it is likely that they would retain that notability, even if their nomations to their respective positions (which have gauranteed them inclusion) had failed, they would still warrant a biography. The Circuit Court of Appeals is no different then any other high level administration appointment. And appointees are in many ways non-elected politicians. Its possible for an unsuccesful candidate for election to fail WP:POL and meet WP:BIO, so why not an unsuccesful candidate nominated by the President? At least with these five, I believe they do exceed the standard. As Brew has pointed out, I think its been hashed out enough at this point, so I will leave it to other editors to evaluate whats been stated here. MrPrada (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There seems to be a defacto acceptance that any high govermental official is basically automatically notable. Joseph H. Boardman and Raymond P. Martinez might not pass the WP:BIO standards, but an afd of their bios is guarenteed to fail. Similarly, when it comes to baseball players. A person who played three games of professional baseball in 1998 is considered notable, and an afd of his bio would fail, notwithstanding the failure of establishing WP:BIO. But the Wikipedia community has only applied these bright-line rules to people that have actually made it. If you have a high-level govement job you are notable, but if you never got any high-level job, you must meet the regular notability standards of WP:BIO and you must move beyond WP:BLP1E. This much I do agree, that it is time for other editors to chime in. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I like the idea of merging the page also. Every single person does not need their article unless the President Clinton's judicial appointments controversy page has been tagged with a long tag and is being split into different articles. Other than that every page will either be merged or deleted because every person on their own is not notable, but an article with all of those men in one is an awesome idea(depending on how well the article is written also)Gears Of War 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. In thinking more about my case for why Moreno, Raymer, Arguello, Snyder and Stack all are sufficiently notable to merit individual Wikipedia biographies, I think it's helpful to look at the issue from another direction, regarding the case of Miguel Estrada.

Like the above five, Estrada was nominated to a federal appeals court judgeship by a president, and like those five, Estrada never was confirmed. (Estrada withdrew his nomination, as did Stack.) Estrada's contributions to notability outside of the failed circuit court nomination are roughly on par with those of Moreno, Raymar, Arguello, Snyder and Stack--certainly not more than the non-nomination contributions of those five, but also not appreciably less (Estrada was an assistant to the solicitor general for a time, while Moreno won some huge financial judgments for his clients in notable cases and also was the subject of comments by both Clinton and Gore in the 2000 race; Raymar was NJ's deputy attorney general at one time; Arguello is on the verge of being nominated to a U.S. district court and has received wholly separated news-media coverage for that, eight years after her nomination failed; Snyder has represented some major clients and was a figure in the Whitewater controversy; and Stack has been a major fundraiser and was a 1996 presidential campaign issue).

However, I don't think there's anyone who would argue that Estrada isn't notable enough to rate a Wikipedia biography. Have there been more news articles about Estrada than those five? Probably (although the vast, vast majority of those articles would deal with Estrada's failed nomination). Was Estrada's nomination during a period of somewhat greater news media coverage of opposition to certain judicial nominations because of the specter of the Senate filibuster? No doubt about it. But it's pretty clear that Estrada's underlying situation and non-nomination notability are very similar to those of Moreno, Raymar, Arguello, Snyder and Stack. As Estrada's biography has no business being deleted--he's obviously an individual whose notability isn't in question--so too should the biographies of Moreno, Raymar, Arguello, Snyder and Stack remain. Jarvishunt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not appear to be notable (yet). Stifle (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep at least Stack, Arguello, and Moreno owing to the multiple independent and reliable sources and reasonable state of the articles. — brighterorange (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2008 (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.

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 merge to Mark S. Weiner.  Sandstein  21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juridical racialism

Juridical racialism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a non-notable concept that appears essentially only in the writings of a single author and has not been picked up by others. Google books and google scholar each generate five hits. Perhaps this should be placed in an article about the book in which the concept was proposed? Mangostar (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have boldly merged to Mark S. Weiner, the author. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The redirect has been reverted for now, because I jumped the gun, but the author article still has the merged info. If the consensus is to delete, then that article may need to be reverted also. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect per above, does not seem notable on it's own. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, It can take a while for a new concept like this to catch on, maybe this one will and maybe not, it's not my field, but until it does, the best place for this material is on the page of the law professor who is proposing this new term.Elan26 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26
• Redirect per Kevin's Merge. Although I'm not sure if Mark S. Weiner himself meets WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• merge and comment This particular theory has not yet been picked up by other legal scholars, either because it is very controversial or because it is less than 2 years old. The author himself has been quoted in 17 other accademic journals according to westlaw.com about his other theories in race and the law. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2008 (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.

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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pferdekamper's Paradox

Pferdekamper's Paradox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This paradox, although interesting and possibly discussed in legal literature somewhere, appears to be a neologism - the cited reference does not mention it, and I couldn't find any other references to it on the web. It doesn't even mention who "Pferdekamper" is - I could find no reference to such a person in the field of law, and I suspect it to be a name or alias of the article creator. Nevertheless it may be legitimate, as the creator appears to be a legitimate, although inexperienced editor, and if they can give a reference I would consider merging instead of deleting (I don't think there's enough to say about this for it to stand on its own, unless it's been a subject of detailed academic legal debate). Dcoetzee 03:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Google only comes up with Wikipedia mirror sites. I would say its a hoax, but considering the creator's semi-legit history I would say its an unnotable neologism. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, a real enough paradox that someone has almost certainly mentioned at some point, though I couldn't find one. More important, however, is that there seems to be nobody significant named Pferdekamper who has defined such a paradox and been noted for having done so. More WP:NFT than WP:HOAX, perhaps, but still not a proper basis for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this as an unnotable neologism. However, the concept itself is definitely notable and I'm sure has come up throughout legal history. Perhaps merging the content into rape? (obviously removing reference to the neologism). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Silly, hoaxy, and not even close to a paradox. The gist of the "paradox" is that if a juvenile delinquent attacks and rapes someone, the victim is "guilty" of statutory rape. One might as well say that a stabbing victim is guilty of vandalism. A good indicator of a hoax is the lack of a first name for "Pferdekamper" Mandsford (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (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.

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 no consensus to delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit

Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Badly sourced, fails notability, huge BLP issues, in short if we can find any reliable info it should be merged into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article has been the target of an attempt to gut and leave it open to an AfD. It seems two sockpuppets of the same banned user (User:MyVeryEducatedMother and User:TuppenceABag) have been busy removing material that is also being removed in the real-world (as noted by Rich Johnston over at Comic Book Resources [2]). It is unclear if this is a coordinated effort but the timing seems curious. I have been discussing the issue of sourcing with ntnon but it might take longer than the length of this AfD to track down resources and I'd not like to see this article get deleted in the meantime - surely that would be handing a victory to those attempting to use underhand means to destroy an article? (Emperor (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment Victory? Destroy? Curious timing? I don't see the appropriateness of any of these phrases. This is a simple afd of an article that is highly controversial, because of BLP and the obvious legal issues, and poorly sourced, so its, IMO, a good candidate for afd. Please don't imply it was afd'd for ulterior motives as that would be assuming bad faith on my part. Having said the which, I am certainly aware of the issues involved,a nd obvioulsy do not support the use of controversial socks by Col Scott. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment My comments were directed to the activities of the sock puppets, not yourself. The AfD was almost inevitable given the state the article was left in, which is why I had been working to try and address the sourcing issues (given that a lot of the good sources are outside my area of expertise) before someone AfDed it (and if it wasn't you then it would have been someone else, and sooner rather than later). (Emperor (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
      • Thanks for clarifying that. I will add that I have seen poor articles transformed into good ones by an afd, which to some extent could be said to either make or break an article, and especially one such as this. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Indeed and it does need it. As the finding of the sources is out of my area of expertise I'm also hoping that the extra attention catches the eye of someone more experienced in finding legal information. As lawyers were involved there must be a paper trail and there must be editors around here who know where to look. Even if this survives this AfD, without those sources will have to be trimmed back further which leave it of a size were it'd probably be best merging to the film article. Whichever way it falls out something needs doing. (Emperor (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
          • OK I have only just got up to speed on the User:ColScott situation (and my comments above should be read in that light as I was unaware of the connections between the various parties, showing that there was no coincidence between the removal of comments elsewhere and the double sock puppet editing of the entry) but I am unsure what bearing this has on the AfD (and by extension the long-term viability of the information as a standalone article), whether it becomes a strong keep pending the finding of further sources to replace those removed (as we can't let people game the system) or if we just let it go (as it is going to be a "scab" that is going to be picked at for the foreseeable future). (Emperor (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• There are sourcing issues though. Both the allegations and the rebuttals section need sourcing. Who is making these allegations and who is rebutting them, us? I've added in some sourcing for removed material, but I think this is better covered in the film article and the Alan Moore article. To me it looks like there was a lawsuit and it was settled. I'm no expert, but I think that's common practise in America. Hiding T 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not really clear on ColScott or what their issue is, either but a lot of the edits the alleged socks have made look to be in keeping with policy. Hiding T 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That is not surprising. The socks got blocked for evading the original block. Col often edits in a high quality way with a good knowledge of polices such as BLP, RS etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the Refimprove tag is enough. Must be a slow day for the deletionists. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. To summarize the lawsuit in the main article on the movie is proper, but this daughter article can present more information, at a level of detail that would be clutter in the main article. The current setup is consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style. This article has proper sourcing for indications that this lawsuit was of some interest and importance, establishing its notability. JamesMLane t c 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- the only sources are message boards. Article has no citations and no back up. Deserves at best one paragraph mention in main article. One of the worst articles I have ever seen.PersecutionComplex (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Care to explain your assertion that the only sources are message boards? Seems to conflict with the evidence, for example the New York Times and the BBC. Hiding T 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The only sources are message boards and pieces in the NY Times that don't actually support what is quoted. Keep Hiding. PersecutionComplex (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • To my mind the NY Times certainly supports the statements made using it as a source. The piece states "When the case was settled out of court, Mr. Moore took it as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself." I believe this wholly supports the statement within the article that the case was ultimately settled out-of-court, a decision which Moore, according to the New York Times "took ... as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself." Why do you not agree? Hiding T 16:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, so that clarifies that it is basically a plagiarized line and should be deleted or reworked- in any case GREAT JOB cleaning the article up- and now as it is it should DEFINITELY be deleted.PersecutionComplex (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually, given the BLP issues, it probably was wise that an exact quote was used—as the quotation marks noted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not plagiarism when you quote and cite a source. It is plaigarism when you seek to pass off someone else's work as your own. This is not something I am seeking to do, as evinced through citation and quotation. Hiding T 16:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes but WP is not just a news clipping service and that is all this article is. And you keep trying to add gossip sites as a source. PEOPLE is not a WP sourcePersecutionComplex (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I was unaware of the nature of PEOPLE, I apologise for adding it to the article, but I do not keep trying to add it to the article, I have added it once, to my knowledge. I have replaced it with a quotation from the BBC. Whether this article should be kept or not is for editorial consensus generated at this debate. While it is here it should not contain speculation, original research or the like, but should be edited in keeping with our editing policy. Hiding T 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                • and you are doing a helluva job in doing so.PersecutionComplex (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, based on where we have the article now I'd simply merge it into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film), but given we have an afd underway we can't as yet do that. I think if we did that we could make even more material redundant. Hiding T 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • For example, the Shane West quote likely is redundant to this article. But both this article, by which I mean the facts regarding the lawsuit, and that quote are relevant to the film article. I'd suggest they both belong there. Hiding T 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • I would agree. No one seems to care about this AfD though.PersecutionComplex (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Perhaps it needs listing on law project or film project pages. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • well there is really nothing left of it and should be amalgamated into the main article.IMO.PersecutionComplex (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • I meant the afd should be listed elsewhere. Obviously, as the nominator, I agree with you about what to do with this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                          • I have added the film del sort and created a law del sort which I will advertise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Hope that helps. Hiding T 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                • People is a superficial celebrity-oriented magazine, but something like this (a dispute involving celebrities) is within its beat. It's not the kind of rag that publishes stories about three-headed children or encounters with space aliens. The linked story is chiefly a summary of the allegations of the lawsuit, and I'd consider it a reliable source in that context. JamesMLane t c 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • first off, this week the front page of People has fotos it paid for of Ashlee Simpson's wedding. It is a tabloid rag and an unsuitable source. Second this is not a dispute among celebrities- this is one guy so not notable he doesn't get an article and a fringe/cult old director suing a studio. No celebrities are involved at all. Third, see below- this case is meaningless in law.PersecutionComplex (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • The issue isn't whether People is in line for a Pulitzer, or whether we approve of its journalistic methods. The issue is whether it's reliable -- whether the statements in it are likely to be true. Paid-for pics are a bad example because we couldn't use them, but suppose People reported: "Joe Jones, who catered Simpson's wedding, said that Carol Burnett was there and offered some of her dessert to Henry Kissinger"? If for some reason that fact were encyclopedic, I'd consider People a reliable source (that Jones actually catered the wedding and actually does say that). Second, this article is on the entertainment beat where People concentrates. Third, that the case was settled before generating any published decision that would show up on Westlaw means it set no precedent for other cases, but that's quite different from "meaningless". It's still meaningful as to its particular subject matter. See, for example, Le Rêve (painting), an article that discusses a lawsuit settlement without citing any published decision. JamesMLane t c 06:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The Phrase "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" does not exist in American case law. Similarly, the phrases "Martin Poll" and "Larry Cohen" taken together do not exist in American case law per Westlaw.com. This means that the lawsuit has no lasting significance in American jurisprudence. Given that this suit would have been filed five years ago, it is either settled or it has been dismissed, but even that court action is not notable. Unless "Cast of Characters" is also the name of a corporation, it cannot sue anyone or anything, so the name of the article is wrong. The only notability of the article is that it has to do with a famous movie. There are thousands of lawsuits out there that do not get their own article, even those worth millions. It seems proper to merge this article into the movie article. As far as its legal significance, it has none. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The significance and notability are surely in how it relates to Alan Moore, since the accusation played a large part in his decision to extricate himself utterly from film-adaptations of his work. ntnon (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that can be dealt with at Moore's own article, it simply is not an argument for a separate article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • even based on your original superfluous OR, it actually played only a small part- the major part was Joel Silver's press conferencePersecutionComplex (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • True. I should have written "while it's absolutely correct to say that the Silver press conference was the final straw, this instance was clearly the tipping point." Allegations of plagiarism, illegal and immoral conduct involved in the writing of an original work are far more damaging in the short and long term than the suggestion of having read and enjoyed a treatment based on ones original work. But parts of the original article did arguably fall under OR, and most of your initial revisions and clarifications were entirely justified and, indeed, very helpful. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • User:PersecutionComplex is banned user ColScott (talk · contribs). Thatcher 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • User:PersecutionComplex was also contributing helpfully to this debate. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with the article on LXG. This article as originally created was quite horrible; a section on Moore's moral character? A section on Impact on LXG cast and crew that says the suit had no impact on the cast (obvious as the suit was not filed until after filming was completed, duh). It seems to have been an attempt to disparage Alan Moore (and to a lesser extent Don Murphy), although perhaps moving it to its own article was an attempt to protect them from disparagement by others who had added the material to Alan Moore; I really can't say who is at fault here. The present version of the article--brief, factual and well-sourced, without fanboy speculation or analysis--is appropriate for inclusion in the LXG movie article. Thatcher 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It was in no way meant to disparage Mr Moore, and there certainly shouldn't have even been a potential reading that in any way disparaged Mr Murphy. Indeed, the dual purposes of mentioning Murphy at all were, firstly, to quote him on the outcome - he had previously been quite open and informative on this - and secondly to firmly state that there was no possible cause for implying any misconduct on his part - indeed, quite the contrary: as a fan of the source material, it is unlikely that any of the changes which precipitated the lawsuit came from him. The "Impact of Murphy" mentions were absolutely geared to saying "There was no impact on Murphy". The purpose of mentioning Moore's "moral character" was not to disparge it (or him), but to explain that the very existence of the lawsuit DID place a slur on his moral and professional character - as (he belives) did the out-of-court settlement of the case (particularly after his providing a lengthy deposition/defence). The purpose of the lawsuit having a separate page was because it was deemed out of place under "LARRY COHEN," and probably too lengthy/different to slot into "ALAN MOORE" or "LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN." The "Impact on the Cast & Crew" of the lawsuit was certainly slight-to-non-existent, although a high-profile lawsuit (widely reported) naturally attaches itself to the cast involved. However, the shoot itself had significant impact on, (particularly,) Mr Norrington and Sean Connery. Short of trying to conjure a page-heading about "The many and varied difficulties in filming LXG", it seemed not entirely without cause to mention that, while the lawsuit did not really impact upon anyone other than Moore, the shoot did. In any case, it seemed appropriate/useful/notable to have a page dealing with this event. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – Better sources have been added to this article since it was nominated for deletion. With sources like the BBC and New York Times mentioning this lawsuit, there are definitely multiple, independent, credible sources establishing notability here. — λ (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - Merge with the movie's article, the article's subject is notable.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:47, 25 May 2008 (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.

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. Nomination withdrawn. Merge or redirect can be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Directive 80/181/EEC

This administrative article has been orphaned since June 2007. It is highly bureaucratic and its author has made only 2 specific edits on Wikipedia: [3] and none to update this article. Its significance seems opaque and limited. Wikipedia does not require an article for every single EEC (now EU) directive--especially one which dates from 1979. Artene50 (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. If it is of serious concern to the United States, then some expansion may be in order. And even though it is bureaucratic in tone, it at least makes sense. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep If I recall correctly, this is the main directive that has been the basis of considerable public controversy in the UK (and, I believe, quite a lot of debate between the EU and the US at a governmental level). The handling of the matter may also have set important precedents. One would need to do some research to check the facts, but the Metric Martyrs article, for instance, should probably link here. The article could probably be expanded a lot and should be very interesting to people looking for the real facts behind a very heated debate in the UK, involving people going to prison and ultimately involving cultural identity, sovereignty, etc.--Boson (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect Then I would suggest that this rather turgid bureaucratic article be redirected to Metric Martyrs where its significance can be more easily understood rather than left all alone and effectively orphaned. Artene50 (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge With either Metric Martyrs, Metrication in the United Kingdom, or Metrication ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasterMereel (talk • contribs)

• Comment The title of the article is not very sexy. Perhaps it should be entitled "Metric Directive". It is sometimes referred to by that name, but I believe there was some discussion, possibly in the EU project, on consistent naming conventions for EU directives. Since the article is about European Union legislation, I don't think it would be appropriate to merge it with or redirect to articles specifically about the UK, particularly articles about protesters who engage in criminal acts as a protest against the legislation. The protests in the UK are not the only reason for the notability of this legislation. There were also protests from the USA. I believe there were also discussions in Germany (about the illegality of measuring monitors, tires and pipes in inches and specifying horsepower for cars). Even without the protests, this legislation was significant in that it enforced metric weights and measures throughout the EU, including the UK, and including imports from the USA. The way the cultural and economic reservations were handled by the EU was also significant. . --Boson (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• keep now User Boson (a member of the EU Wikiproject) has indicated he will rename this article into something more palatable and alter its contents to render it more accesible to readers if it survives this vote for deletion. Since the article deals with the EEC's gradual application of the metric system in Europe, it would have some impact on US trade with the EU and on the UK which uses the imperial pound system. I am certain Boson will change the article's contents and update it. Therefore, I withdraw my deletion nomination. Artene50 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 20:37, 18 May 2008 (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.

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 withdrawn by nominator - non-admin closure. nneonneo ^talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California v. Byers

California v. Byers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominating:

• Adderley v. Florida (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - textdump from [4] or similar

Withdrawn, concerns addressed. nneonneo ^talk 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Textdump from [5] or similar site. While this isn't a copyvio (since such cases are in the public domain), this is "just another legal case" since it doesn't assert the notability of the case. nneonneo ^talk 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment both articles need work but since they are U.S. Supreme Court cases they will most likely have significant independent coverage. Adderley v. Florida is appears to be an important decision regarding free speech zones. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, you are correct; Adderley v. Florida looks like it does have importance. That article can probably be saved from the axe; however, I'm still trying to find what makes California v. Byers notable (aside from it being a US supreme court case). nneonneo ^talk 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Motion to Strike They might not be copyvios. But they are not articles, either. Text dumps from Findlaw should not go here. Eauhomme (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all US supreme court cases are notable, and are good bases for articles. Both of these are in any case significant either as precedent or historically. Needs a good deal of work, of course, but thats not reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki both to Wikisource. We should have articles on these cases, but they should be articles and not the original documents. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete source material. It's not formatted and WikiSource can easily obtain the text elsewhere. WillOakland (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Bailii. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice to future creation as a real article. SCOTUS cases are inherently notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki Both to Wikisource.-- danntm ^T _C 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Adderley v. Florida but delete California v. Byers per above. Adderley v. Florida is no longer just a text dump and is properly formatted with references. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination of Adderley v. Florida: article has been properly sourced and the textdump removed, so the original concerns no longer hold true. nneonneo ^talk 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the headnotes but keep and re-write the article: I would argue that Supreme Court cases are presumptively notable. This particular case, if I understand correctly, holds that hit and run statutes are constitutional (and, among other things, cites to a case holding that a state law requiring the filing of income tax returns does not violate the right against self-incrimination, and to other cases holding that various police investigative procedures do not violate the right against self-incrimination). However, I'm not sure whether the headnote falls under the same copyright exception as the opinion? Basically the text of the decision of the court itself is in the public domain, but anything, and I mean anything, added by a commercial publisher is copyrighted. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Move to dismiss without prejudice The issue is now moot. I think the best thing to do in the future would be to turn a copied opinion into a stub as a placeholder rather than delete the article all together as long as it is apparent that the article would be otherwise notable if written. Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination. Thank you very much for summarizing and clarifying the material. nneonneo ^talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 20:40, 18 May 2008 (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.