Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler


 * 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   no consensus for delete. Too many of the delete votes simply stated the article was a POV fork, yet more of the keep votes had substance. There then becomes the issue of merging - the keep and merge arguments were equally valid and there wasn't a clear consensus to be made out of that. However, since merging can be done outside of the construct of AfD, and because there was no consensus for deletion, I am closing this as no consensus and suggesting those who voted for a merge continue that discussion on the respective talk pages. I am, however, deleting the redirects, as it is clear there was consensus to delete those. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Content/POV fork from Chrysler bankruptcy. The main article covers this in the section "Sale to New Chrysler". This was not a SCOTUS case, SCOTUS just issued per curiam denial, so it doesn't fall under a SCOTUS case notability aspect. Most of the content within this page is actually related to the bankruptcy of Chrysler and the sale and not to this particular case. Also, there are 29 redirects for this page including absurd ones - "Mourdock v. Obama" (which has seen been the redirect for another case before becoming one for this, edit summary note: "The lawsuit is real. It's the name that is unknown"). If this article is a keep, the redirects will have to be taken to RfD. Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Keep. This is a notable event and lawsuit filed by the Indiana Secretary of the Treasury regarding the state of Indiana and worthy of inclusion. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, perhaps I was not clear orginally, I think this is worthy of inclusion as a prominent event and historical article in Indiana, not because of its status in the courts, or its merits as a case. It recieved significant coverage in local media, and was a high-profile and important state event. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep the article. Delete the bad redirects. I started this article before the case was assigned a name, which explains the bad redirects. This subject is notable because it's the first time in U.S. history that a secured creditor was treated worse than an unsecured creditor. It's also notable because the U.S. President has been accused of violating U.S. bankruptcy law. U.S. bankruptcy law is very clear that secured creditors get precedence over unsecured creditors. Also, the article is more than 25K in length, has 34 references, and has been edited by more than 20 different users. The article was also linked to on the wikipedia homepage in the section in the news. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that the case was filed, but it was not heard by the court. Which is why, the place to address it is the Chrysler bankruptcy page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The SCOTUS throw out thousands of cases a year. A case thriwn out is not notable. PhGustaf (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the name of the article should be changed. My concern is with secured creditors being treated worse than unsecured creditors, which is noteworthy in and of itself, as is explained in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If using Wikipedia for some personal crusade is your intent, you're going to wind up sadly disappointed. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal crusade. I think it's noteworthy because of the precedent it sets. In the future, how will companies in positions such as Chrysler be able to get secured loans, now that they really don't exist anymore? What about contracts? What about the idea that the President is not supposed to be above the law? These are huge issues, as is described in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that it's not a personal crusade and then immediately contradict yourself: not a good strategy. All that stuff about the future importance is YOUR future crusade, not an actual objective conclusion. --Calton | Talk 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unimportant legal case, and any coverage is purely in the context of Chrysler bankruptcy, not the case itself. Unfork this. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The coverage is not "purely in the context of Chrysler bankruptcy," because the article also discusses other things, such as the fifth amendment, property rights, and due process, as well as the kinds of effects it is predicted to have in future scenarios where companies in a condition such as Chrysler's try to get a secured loan. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Encrusting it with your own spin/interpretation doesn't help you left it out of its sole context. --Calton | Talk 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable case with very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. It has not been thrown out, but a request to stop to the deal with fiat from going forward refused. The issue of how bondholders are treated is very significant and important. If there are content issues they should be addressed through editing. It should also be noted that there is a campaign against articles created by user:Grundle2600 who's being hounded by many of the editors identified as the worst POV pushers during the Obama arbcom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Merits maybe a sentence or two somewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge. This lawsuit was only in the news for a few days, and only because there was anticipation about the stay would affect the larger Fiat sale.  As mentioned above, all the Supreme Court did was refuse a stay, which is its usual reaction to a petition to stay &mdash; it didn't even grant certiorari (agreeing to hear the actual case) as far as I know, let alone decide anything.  In other words, this hasn't been a Supreme Court case yet.  This lawsuit is still alive, and yet it's not really in the news anymore.  Maybe if it is accepted and ruled on by the Supreme Court, a decision would be notable; but it hasn't been accepted &mdash; it's just an appellate case, not reversing the original court, that the Supreme Court hasn't even taken up (yet if at all).  Whether the disposition of bondholders in bankruptcy is notable is something for reliable sources to determine &mdash and the vast majority of this suit's news coverage was about whether it was holding up the Fiat date, not about its merits.  The possibility of the Fiat sale falling through was the notable event, not the court case.  I realize there was also some coverage of the actual issues in the case &mdash; as cited in the article &mdash; but it was mostly political pundits on both sides; it wasn't the main thrust of the coverage from reliable sources.  That all said, I'm reluctant to recommend deleting an article that had some work put into it &mdash; but it did start out as a strong POV pushing article, and hasn't gotten much better.  If something that shouldn't have been a separate article has turned into a long, neutral article, maybe it should stay &mdash; but when one starts out non-neutral and would still require quite a large amount of research to become neutral, it's probably easier to merge the neutral parts and delete the lengthy one-sided detail that should have never happened in the first place.  And until there are WP:RS that this court case actually is a landmark case in financial law, not just a disputed aberration that is part of some other important subject, this subject isn't notable enough for its own article. --Closeapple (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: A poor content/POV fork that simply is not needed. Moving on... seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Really is just a POV fork which can be covered in the primary article. Skinny87 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the lists of News-related deletions and Social science-related deletions. --Closeapple (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:N.. South Bay (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Almost every U.S. Supreme Court case is cited, discussed, and otherwise part of for decades after closure.  This isn't (yet?) a case accepted for a hearing, merely one for which the court took the unusual step of writing an opinion denying of stay.  I think this was the only such denial of stay issued as an opinion of the court during the current term.  There is more than enough evidence that this was of short run notability.  The article will be better off once our WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases gets to it and brings the write-up more in line with the rest of the series.  (I've flagged the project that the article needs work.) Since the court issued the denial of stay as an opinion per curium, that denial is precedent and will be cited and analyzed in the future.  So I expect this also to have long run significance meriting an encyclopedia article.  GRBerry 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —GRBerry 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The precedent is actually Nken v. Holder. The only ruling here was that a stay was not justified, and the petitioners have to go back through the normal system, and that would mean that the case becomes a SCOTUS case not earlier than the October 2010. Therefore my contention that the case has not yet achieved notability, it's Chrysler bankruptcy that has any notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Chrysler bankruptcy (2009) and redirect. Although this could still become a Supreme Court case in the future, it is still an appellate case at the present time, and will be until the Court agrees to hear the case, if ever. Thus, I agree wholeheartedly with Closeapple. I suggest merging rather than deleting because several users have worked hard on this article, and their work may be valuable if the Court ever agrees to hear the case. However, as noted above, the article started out as a POV page for Grundle2600. There are definitely anti-Obama overtones remaining in the article, and when information is merged into the Chrysler bankruptcy article I would recommend removal of such bias. Ultimately, there are only a couple of lines on this subject in the Chrysler bankruptcy article, and if someone started a subsection in that article about this case I would not be unopposed. But until the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case, Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler does not merit its own article. Also, delete all the absurd redirects. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tentative support of merge because this wasn't really a full U.S. Supreme Court opinion, but rather a procedural action (denial of stay). So long as the facts surrounding the legal action pursued by Chrysler's creditors are preserved in the Chrysler bankruptcy (2009) article, then I have no problem merging it. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 17:49, 1 July 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.