Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore


 * 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The result was   keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has no text content, only an infobox. Has been prodded, original editor de-prodded. Unref, orphan, not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination (perhaps move per Cunard below?) - article is now no longer the content-free zone which it was when I nominated (and I don't know enough about US law to generate text content from the infobox, so WP:SOFIXIT didn't apply here!). Glad to see it become something worth keeping in the encyclopedia. PamD (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that there are already 4 incoming redlinks to the short title Premo v. Moore. PamD (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep -- article is a major United States Supreme Court case, there is plenty of text content already included in the infobox that I just transfered over in about 2 seconds, and personally, I think the nominator's insistence on deleting an obviously important article at all costs without even an attempt at the slightest bit of improvement is borderline tendentious editing. Try expanding the article instead -- this deletion is just pure laziness. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've expanded the article a bit further. None of the original nom reasons apply. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Euclid Faktur. Needs significant expansion and cleanup, but as a Supreme Court case it does pass notability requirements. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep All SCOTUS cases are notable because of the coverage they have received in reliable publications. In this court case, see the sources here. This article from the Associated Press, this article from KUOW, and this article from ABA Journal confirm that the court case is notable. Most of the sources refer to this case as Premo v. Moore. Perhaps this article should be moved there? Cunard (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Became? I don't think you get what the comments here were saying. It was always worth keeping in the encyclopedia. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notable or not, an article needs to have some text content even if only a lead sentence. By the time other people were commenting, it did have, so there were no comments on its textlessness. PamD (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Do we have a naming convention for the Law/SCOTUS wikiprojects on article titles vs. captions? It's probably better to move it to the short form, but lets wait till the AFD completes so nothing breaks. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My thoughts too or I'd have WP:BOLDly moved it after finding the incoming redlinks. PamD (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (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.