Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petition of Nemetz


 * 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔  01:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Petition of Nemetz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page creator had removed the PROD tag. The case is not significant as far as I know, and wikipedia is not repository. Fauzan  ✆ talk  ✉ email  15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTREPOSITORY has no application to this article because this article is clearly not a repository of links, images or media files. James500 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Striked out now. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  08:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Appellate case from regional circuit; no indication that it set any precedent followed by other circuits or otherwise made any significant impact on immigration jurisprudence. TJRC (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I'd not heard of the case, but this case has been cited as precedent in the Virginia Law Review and other sources. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How was it cited? For what precedent? A lot of non-notable cases get cited all the time.  TJRC (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep TJRC's question above appears to be answered in the footnotes to the article at the time I write this, but in addition: This article and this law review article treat the case as their primary topic. Even without access to the full articles, Journal article = reliable, authors = indpendent; topic=article implies signficant coverage, I'm seeing this case meets WP:GNG.   I do wonder if it would be better moved to Nemetz v INS or the like.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Added:  also provides signficant, secondary, reliable coverage.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep based on 's finds. I've stricken my prior Delete !vote. TJRC (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2014 (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.