Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, Jr.


 * 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   Speedy del CSD:G5 - article by banned user. - 7-bubёn >t 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, Jr.

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

This article was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user User:Florentino_floro, and the article is about the blocked user himself. It seems his recent indefinite block on Wikinews has driven him to back here.

There is no notable information in this article that is not already covered in the Florentino Floro article. Further argument by User:Maxschmelling: "Per discussion at the Law WikiProject, individual cases are not notable just by virtue of being mentioned in the press. Notability in terms of individual cases is determined by the significance of the issue or the decision. Generally, it seems, cases need to be mentioned in casebooks or to be foundational in some way to be considered notable as cases. This one doesn't stand up. The defendent is barely notable himself and there is no significant issue of law at stake."

Also, I must pre-emptively warn that the blocked user is very likely to participate in this discussion with extremely long and rambling diatribes (such as this), under the guise of various sockpuppets or IP addresses. TheCoffee (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Maxschmelling. Is there a firm statement of case notability at the Law Wikiproject?  No one brought it up at the Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. AFD, where it would have been dispositive. THF (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just another vanity article in a series of manifestations of Floro's unending desire to establish a "Wikipedia legacy", as he has several times put it. --Migs (talk) 16:25, 18 March 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.