Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acela circuit


 * 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. JForget 00:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Acela circuit

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Passing mention in a single reputable source is insufficient demonstration of notability. Durova 320 01:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the apparent WP:NEOLOGISM; though seven of nine have apparently served in this group of courts, it does not appear to be a notable term. They more or less all had to serve somewhere (Harriet Miers notwithstanding). Frank  |  talk  02:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1) The term was used in the New York Times in a way suggesting it was in the vernacular.

2) That the seven justices had to serve "somewhere" is meaningless. The point, and the reason the term has come to be used, is the proximity of the circuits and states that the "Acela circuit" represents - seven small states (and one district) out of 51 that represent 4 circuits out of 12 are the source of all but 2 justices.

The point is that almost all the justices come from a small corner of the U.S., and that is why the term has come into parlance. Cranialsodomy (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are just 177 ghits, and all appear to be a loop from the Times.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Times reference reads thus: And only a few of those appeals courts at that: seven of the justices served on what might be called the court of appeals for the Acela circuit, in Boston, Philadelphia and Washington. That hardly qualifies as "suggesting it was in the vernacular" or "come into parlance". It looks like they made it up. If it were common (and thus notable), they would have used a different construct than might be called. Frank  |  talk  12:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Neologism. As best as I can tell, it was made up by a New York Times writer. We can't have an article on every witticism emanating from that newspaper. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There doesn't seem to be anything in this article that isn't already taken care of elsewhere. If the "Acela circuit" designation ever comes to be signficant beyond this particular bit of trivia, it might merit its own article. As of now, that does not seem to be the case at all. Brettalan (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2009 (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.