Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In re Keeler's Estate


 * 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. Reads like a case on a minor point of PA trusts and estates law. Absent some assertion of why the case is signficant, it seems to me that the delete argument is stronger.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In re Keeler&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No indication of notability. Wikipedia is not meant to be a library of case law. PKT (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. --Alfadog (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as it falls out of the scope of our legal stuff. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep as a perfectly good stub within the scope of WP:Law. I recall briefing it in Albany Law School as a leading precedent.  It does not get that many Ghits, see .  Also, it's not cited in the text I use for my Wills Course (Brown, 3d ed.).  So I'm not going to bother to rescue this one.  Anyone else? Bearian 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the question for decision is notability. This is a question that needs answer from a Pennsylvania lawyer, which I am not.  Peterkingiron 23:18, 3 December 2007 (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.