Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giglio material


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Giglio material

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This legal term is not notable. The article has previously been deleted via PROD. Coycan (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to Giglio v. United States and expand.  This is a essentially a stub of an article of a notable U.S Supreme Court case, which are almost inherently notable, with a non-optimal name. TJRC (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have decided to be WP:BOLD, and have rewritten the article from scratch and moved it to Giglio v. United States, as I suggested above. I humbly suggest that this be withdrawn by the nom or closed as a Speedy Keep.  The redirect from Giglio material should be retained: that term is used, and I've provided a cite for that in my rewritten article. Someone searching for "Giglio material" should be directed to the new article. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- although this was indeed deleted as an expired PROD, it was restored by the Request for Undeletion process, not just by the editor recreating the deleted material. See WP:REFUND.  The restoring admin documented his basis for restoration as follows: "as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Moreover, my search of Lexis confirms that it is appears to be notable concept that could be expanded into a suitable article." TJRC (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the article on the case and keep the redirect. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the article on the case and the redirect, additional sourcing exists, etc.-- j &#9883; e decker  talk  17:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The court case on its own might be fairly low on the notability scale but it's given a name to a more widely-used concept (cf Miranda, Gillick, &c) and there's plenty more sources out there. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 28 December 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.