Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6


 * 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 Speedied per below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a POV opinion essay, inherently unbalanced. Fails WP:NOTESSAY. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure where you are seeing the document as unbalanced. While it references the law, it is not interpreting it. Where there are other related issues which are more subject to bias, they are NOT included. The cross references are all in order.

The intent is to provide information regarding the issue of a historical event. Two non-lawyers present their challenge and attempt to re-secure their constitutional rights. Finding along the way that the Law is nationwide in every state. The law which causes their issue, is the law which mandates a conspiracy of silence within the judiciary. The problem presented is that the judiciary enacted an unconstitutional law, and the way they did it, they have made it illegal to remove their own law because their integrity has been undermined.

This is also not a conspiracy theory. The referenced facts speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeranceH (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The problem presented is that the judiciary enacted an unconstitutional law, and the way they did it, they have made it illegal to remove their own law because their integrity has been undermined." That is your analysis of the situation... which is the heart of the problem here. Wikipedia is not a place for your analysis. This piece is full of your statement of your opinion ("The integrity of the court is affected when the judiciary is mandated to injustice without ability to explain."), of quotes that you have selected because you feel they build your case rather than because some reliable third-party source says they're relevant (we can be pretty sure that Alexander Hamilton was not talking about Rule 1.6) Even headers like "The Real Matter" speak to a point of view. This is all a fine and wonderful blog post that you should put on your blog, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a source of individual opinion or original analysis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article is an argumentative essay that inherently cannot have a neutral point of view.--Rpclod (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and consider speedy. Most of the article appears to be a verbatim copy of a lawsuit filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit doesn't make a lot of sense (and names as defendants a lot of people having no connection with Pennsylvaina), and there is no evidence it's a notable lawsuit. In fact, the lawsuit was dismissed by the court in 2013 on the ground that the federal court had no jurisdiction to review state-court decisions as the plaintiffs were seeking, and that dismissal was recently affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The introduction to the article also contains fanciful claims, such as that RPC 1.6 (which prohibits lawyers from disclosing confidential information provided to them by their clients, unless an exception applies) was created in response to Operation Greylord in the 1980s, although the duty of confidentiality has been contained in the Canons of Ethics going back at least to the early 1900s. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find a speedy deletion criteria that fits (it would be a bit of a stretch of WP:A11 to make that work), otherwise I'd have marked it for speedy. The article author's username suggests a strong relationship to the case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is blatant enough as not belonging that I could justify a pure IAR deletion, but if I'm compelled to check a box, I would indeed go with A11 ("obviously invented"), as this is clearly the page-creator's own frivolous, dismissed lawsuit. Relatedly, I'm not sure which speedy criterion applies to wholesale (but non-copyvio) reproduction of a non-notable, unimportant primary source document, but there certainly should be one. Another alternative would be to get a few more "deletes" to pile up here and declare a SNOW deletion. But having this nonsense sitting in mainspace for a week and getting mirrored is the sort of thing that brings the project into disrepute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel like flagging it for A11, I'm certainly willing to IAR enough not to delete that tag. I cannot speak for anyone else. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and speedied it. It's primarily a copy of a source document, which is not an article at all, and the balance I think does qualify as A11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2014 (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.