Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly


 * 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. There is no evidence that the case has set any kind of precedence, or of coverage by reliable sources to allow it to pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to be a notorious hoax with extensive Internet coverage, to the point where the official law library of the Minnesota court system has had to set up a special web page dealing with it . The decision was quickly thrown out, and the "winning" lawyer disbarred (apparently the "judge" who issued it was both his client and was not even allowed to hear the case) and later sentenced to a long prison term on tax charges. There's enough of web presence to make it a plausible search term in various forms. The existing version is garbage, and an accurate version will be hard to maintain, but that's not a reason for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. See Talk:Fiat money.  It was (apparently) decided that the case wasn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in the Fiat money article, which is its natural home.  However, consensus can change. Tevildo (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom, and per the Talk:Fiat money discussion. No changes have been made to the article since nomination.  It's precedent, by the way, not precedence or "prejudicate". Tevildo (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A mistyping; I am a law student ;P. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sincerest apologies for any offence. My comment was directed more at the article author. :) Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure this isn't notable as anti-tax lore? This case seems to get mentioned or alluded to a lot: . The sources tend to be very skewed politically, but still, that so many mention him and this case seems notable. There's no actual requirement that the Fiat money article mention him before we keep an article on this case, fiat money is a very general topic that needs to be written from a global perspective. Wikipedia can still cover topics too obscure to make it into the top level article. Of course, this version of the article doesn't seem to have much worth keeping, I admit. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are many lawsuits launched or defended by people who don't want to meet their financial obligations, whether it's tax or (as in this case) mortgage repayments.  This one is only really notable because it was decided the wrong way at first instance, not because Mr Daly's case had any intrinsic merit.  However, if we can find significant mention of it in reliable sources - and I assume tax-denial blogs don't count as "reliable" - it can stay.  I still think that it would be better as part of the Fiat money article, though, in default of an article on judicial bias or something more appropriate, rather than just standing alone. Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just went and did a total rewrite, based on the sources cited here and in the article. Look at it again and see if you think it now qualifies for a Keep. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Keep but rewrite heavily. The article as it exists is semi-illiterate, and it's impossible to tell what really happened. The information and sources mentioned here should be added to the article, so that people who look this up can tell what is really going on. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Melanie
 * If this rewrite isn't done though, I think the decision should clearly be delete . The article needs a total rewrite, right now it just quasi-coherently tells the story in a way that attempts to bolster a crackpot point of view on taxation. Keeping that around is not a good idea. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the rewrite, now we actually have something worth keeping. Also I want to keep it based on the number of times this gets referred to in books and websites... often incorrectly. It seems notable. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The evidence of notability is still rather limited, but the Minnesota State Law Library article at least indicates that people are _interested_ in it; considering the vastly improved quality of the article, I now think it should stay. Tevildo (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the rewritten version. Edward321 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 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.