Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourgeois v. Peters


 * 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   keep. probably a consensus to merge - but further discussion as to target needed Scott Mac (Doc) 21:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bourgeois v. Peters

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion after previously being contested.

Reason for proposed deletion was "Topic of unestablished notability." Taelus (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's funny.  Why in the world would they quote Wikipedia for that?  Anyway ... will be interested in the supporter(s) explaining why "one of the first" should qualify -- perhaps the first, or the first by U.S. Circuit Court or higher (if the S Ct ever does), but otherwise that seems overbroad/loose to hang one's hat on for notability.  Perhaps better placed in an article on Wikipedia being quoted by courts...at least that is my initial take.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. The case has been discussed in at least four two journal articles, see, exactly for the basis of notability asserted in the article: "primarily notable for being one of the earliest court opinions to cite  and quote Wikipedia." TJRC (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Amending my comment above; one hit is a master's paper, and one is a duplicate.  But two (Wikipedia in Court: When and How Citing Wikipedia and Other Consensus  Websites is Appropriate, The Citation of Wikipedia in Judicial  Opinions) are published articles on exactly this topic. TJRC (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep We shouldn't avoid articles on ourselves. But possibly it could be merged with other similar opinion as they accumulate.    DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Symbol merge vote.svg Merge into Wikipedia's history or reliability article. Not enough notable instances for a seperate article on court citations (though one on citations in general could be explored).--Ipatrol (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete absent any sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia in law (which is what TJRC's sources are really about) and expand. This case doesn't merit a standalone article, though the concept might.  In the alternative, delete. THF (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, maybe WP:Wikipedia in judicial opinions and maybe WP:Wikipedia as a court source ought to be moved to article space, with the various case names (if not notable for other reasons and having their own articles) redirecting there. TJRC (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (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.