Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rap brief


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rap brief

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

A redirect to Gregory Charles Royal has been reverted. No assertion that this so-called legal technique has been used more than once. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Man writes rap as brief in court. So keep this article you think we ought? I express dissent and contraversion, on this event notable only for one person. Sources only give this man the fame, and don't even call it by this name. This technique don't have the "fides" you opine. It ain't even genuine. Sources don't state that it, was considered legally legit, or even any more than a piece of fluff to amuse those waiting for "And finally &hellip;" at the end of their news. You want to prove that this conclusion is wrong? Cite sources discussing many legal briefs in song! The PNC ain't satisfied, with sources that are by us relied to show this original idea to have escaped its inventor, and into the general corpus of human knowledge to enter. Document this one event in the article on the man who did the deed. An article on the idea with a made up title we don't need. Delizete. Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the technique has not been used more than once, however, that it was successful at the state appellate level i.e a high court, and was reported nationally by the associated press makes it noteworthy, newsworthy and a bona fide technique-bethbar5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethbar5 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

^ Though Uncle G's lyrics are clever they somewhat miss the point. That the source of the subject is not only Associated Press but also for example American Bar Association linked here at http://www.abajournal.com/news/rapping_appeal_leads_to_win_for_pro_se_trombone_player/

the original research argument is moot as the technique has, as a clear matter of fact, been recognized by undeniable legit sources.

Second the title of one Associated Press article cites "Rap brief" in the title  see at http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/38306479.html

Third, the notability is not measured by the author of the idea but by the appellate court that entertained the brief. Finally, the premise that many need to have used the technique is flawed I think. I submit if only one person had figured out a way to fly by flapping her arms, and that process having been reported in industry publications would be a legitimate technique..- bethbar5


 * Delete. A brief-writing strategy - pertaining to part of a six-page brief - by a pro se litigant in a non-notable divorce proceeding, and one that may or many not have had any bearing whatsoever on the result? Frivolous and non-notable. If consensus here is for delete, the lede to Gregory Charles Royal should also be amended to remove the reference to this article. Simon Dodd (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable Ijanderson (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gregory Charles Royal and merge. A small amount of content plus one reference equals any easy merge. Great rap, Uncle G.!  Royal broil  03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not notable --ND (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not that this particular AfD has a chance post-Uncle G's response. Bethbar5, the ABA Journal and appellate court's opinion and AP story confirm that the rapping occurring, and was successful - verifiable if you prefer. It still isn't notable. It's a (legal) news story about something novel. The sources do not describe a "techinque" - the article makes a leap that the sources do not. This interplay between WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS is often confused, and I don't pretend that I always get it right. Still, this is not currently, and lacks sources to become, an encyclpedia article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

^ If the consensus is to delete could one of the contributors here merge or write the "novel news story" into Gregory Charles Royal bio- bethbar5  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.54.67 (talk) 04:48, 30 January 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.