Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advisory jurisdiction


 * 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 redirect to Advisory opinion.  Sandstein  12:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Advisory jurisdiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- it does not exist at the Federal level. Some states have it, like NY, but the US court system does not. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to advisory opinion. The article consists solely of false information; deleting that deletes the entire article. (I've added a disputed tag; it shouldn't be allowed to remain up without its falsity being noted during this AfD.) I would not object to an article that actually discusses advisory jurisdiction in those states or countries where it exists. TJRC (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did a very quick rewrite, replacing the text with accurate information. It still does not seem to be worth retaining; and perhaps the best solution, though, is to redirect to advisory opinion, which I found while re-writing. TJRC (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2016 (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.