Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlBaho Case


 * 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.  Singu larity  18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

AlBaho Case

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to cover a non-notable legal case. It has been speedy-deleted twice before over a year ago, but it has popped up again. Both in late 2006 and now, I have checked, and the only real discussion of this case outside of wikipedia is one website that appears to have been created by the aggrieved party. The earlier versions of this article were created by User:JimA who I think was blocked for this. The current version is, from what I can remember, almost identical, but created by User:DomLor (WP:SOCK?). Earlier versions if this article appear to have been deleted in part due to WP:OTRS complaints. There is a bunch of stuff that it appears only admins can check on this, but I think that the non-notable aspect is enough to start an AfD. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, case with no notability regardless of its perceived earthshaking importance. Fails WP:V in most respects. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete if this was anything notable at all, there would be a news article about it. I looked in the Google News archive and found nothing. --Aude (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Google comes up with very little results and no reliable sources —  Wen li  (reply here) 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; in the very best possible light this is an unreferenced hatchet job. I speedied this over a year ago, with nearly identical content, in response to OTRS complaints from one of the people involved in the case.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete it probably is notable, but we need some sources. And the present article is obviously totally unbalanced. By a careful reading of what is there, the ultimate matter in question is  a dispute about withdrawal of a manuscript from publication. I can't do the sourcing on this one. DGG (talk) 19:33, 8 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.