User talk:Judge advocate

AfD nomination of California v. Byers
I have nominated California v. Byers, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/California v. Byers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? nneonneo talk 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For an example of a good Wikipedia article on a legal case, see Roe v. Wade. nneonneo talk 23:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Adderley v. Florida
A tag has been placed on Adderley v. Florida requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Nk.sheridan    Talk  01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Adderley v. Florida
A tag has been placed on Adderley v. Florida requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Nk.sheridan    Talk  01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm a little concerned about your recent additions to the encyclopedia. Legal cases in the United States are public domain, but that doesn't mean that they're encyclopedic. There are numerous court cases which are highly relevant and important in a legal context, and frequently in a wider social context (Roe v. Wade, a featured article, is just such a case). Perhaps the cases you have posted are important, too, but you have to show that they are deserving of an article. More importantly, I ask that you refrain from copying and pasting the entire text of legal proceedings, since this is material which isn't inherently encyclopedic, and which is readily available elsewhere. You can, of course, copy relevant sections of a legal decision into an article, provided it's a public-domain work. Thanks. nneonneo talk 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)