Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander v. State of Alaska, et al.


 * 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 all as non-notable case law by clear consensus. Biography also fails rules on living persons.Bearian (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander v. State of Alaska, et al.

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


 * Delete as a WP:SOAPboxing attempt by the plaintif in this case. Mayalld (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. My attempt to prod this conflicted with Mayalld's bringing it here. I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources covering this matter; Google and Google News just turn up the usual legal records (and not many of those). I agree with the nominator about the soapboxing, as well. Deor (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. An unreported lawsuit that established no significant precedent; a purely private matter. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Objection OBJECTION TO DELETION verification source/link of information contained in proposed article (http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?27022304); (https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?380892); (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?440408442970955-L_801_0-1). The 1st link will  allow immediate viewing, the other 2-links require a US District Court "Pacer" account.  Futhermore, it is my guess that neither one of the opponents to the proposed article are impartial or legal oriented.  How many Pro Se litigants does either one know who have prevailed in a jury trial against a licensed attorney, especially against a State Attorney General?  The proposed article is not a personal opinion or idea, the proposed article is of a factual - verifiable legal nature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Alexander (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)  — Kenneth Alexander (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Kenneth Alexander (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment nobody is claiming that this is untrue. Merely that it is not notable. As such, proving the truth of it doesn't address the fact that this isn't notable, that you have a serious conflict of interest, that the article is written only from your point of view, etc. etc. Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's actually not anything like as rare as you would think. The court system is designed to find the truth, not who's best at debating a point, and anyone of reasonable intelligence with enough time on their hands to do the necessary research should be able to represent themselves reasonably. JulesH (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per everyone but the creator of the articles. The case existing does not make it notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely non-notable.TJRC (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While Mr. Alexander seems to have won a well-deserved victory against his state government, I can find no secondary sources that discuss his case or its relevance to anyone beyond those directly involved.  Without such sources, the case is not notable. JulesH (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for grandstanding on a not so notable case--and in very non-encyclopedic language (and it's not "legalese" either). Drmies (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based on the above, I invoke the snowball clause.  Let's close this. TJRC (talk) 19:31, 16 January 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.