Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Brandt

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. Prodego ^talk 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States v. Brandt

United States v. Brandt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Had a no consensus AFD in December, 2005 here but most of the keep reasons wasn't valid, mainly keep and sig, because it's related Brandt. Non-notable court case, poorly sourced other then the official court docrument as well, see WP:RS, not worth merging to Daniel Brandt as it's unsourced Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Did this decision set any sort of precedent? Or is it just here for muckraking against a well-known Wikipedia critic? Unless any further notability about this decision can be produced, delete it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless this court case has been cited in at least one major decision by a high-level court. Mister.Manticore 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - I believe legal cases a person have been involved in, especially if they reach trial, are inherently notable. The content in this article should be merged into the rest of his article, perhaps under the heading 'Legal Experience' or just borg it into the part about student activism. The talk page should also be rescued so that the content on it(The court case) may be referenced with ease. Perhaps put the talkpage onto WikiSource? Chris Croy 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as a not-lawyer I could not assess the notability or not notability of this case, could it be wise to ask someone interested in laws (or professional) if this thing is relevant, and if is, to add something to the article so we understand it ? Alf^Photoman 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Neither article is excessively long, and any relevant information about the court case can be placed in Brandt's article under his name... which would be a far more likely search term for people seeking court case information anyway. Nom. states the information is "unsourced," but if it's a real court case, I can't imagine sourcing would be difficult for the editors interested in working on the merger. ◄Zahakiel► 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Daniel Brandt Alf^Photoman 13:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• No secondary sources; the discussion is original research. Remove content and Redirect to Daniel Brandt. SmokeyJoe 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no wide significance, and not really significant to what Daniel Brandt is known for today. Dragomiloff 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain. It wouldn't be a proper reason to either keep or delete this article on the grounds of either following or resisting Brandt's wishes / demands / rants regarding his wanting it deleted. The decision should be made solely based on the significance and notability of the case itself, and since I lack sufficient information to know this, I'll defer to others who might be better qualified to make this determination. If it's only of significance because Mr. Brandt is involved, then it's best off just being mentioned in his own article and not in a separate article, but if it's actually a significant precedent that affected subsequent cases, it might deserve an article of its own. Any lawyers out there who might wish to comment? *Dan T.* 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article makes no attempt to assert notability. --Folantin 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does assert any notability and lacks references. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:55, 19 March 2007 (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.