Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Side show pizza


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Side show pizza

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

I feel that being a party in a notable legal case is at least a plausible claim of notability, so I have declined the speedy deletion request on this article. However, I'm not sure that the article is really notable enough, so I am taking it to AFD. Danaman5 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 23:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference for the Supreme Court finding is Commonwealth v. Irwin, 636 A.2d 1106 (Pa. 1993). Because the finding was in 1993 it is difficult to locate an online document, however, doing a Google search for "Commonwealth v. Irwin, 636 A.2d 1106 (Pa. 1993)" will return multiple cases where this ruling is being cited. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

I have added the Supreme Court reference to the article. This should satisfy notability. --Bblboy54 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. The _lawsuit_ is definitely notable, and I think we should have an article on it; however, I'm not sure that's sufficent grounds for the arcade to be notable in its own right.  We _do_ have an article on John Geddes Lawrence, although it's flagged for non-notability; this is a similar case.  Perhaps renaming the article to Commonwealth v. Irwin and changing the emphasis would be a possibility? Tevildo (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or rewrite - In this usage, a court case is being used as a WP:PRIMARY source, as it is instigated by the subject of the Article and simply a record of events. If the Article was rewritten about the Law and pointing out its notability, it could then mention the Wylie Irwin case as a Cite. Exit2DOS2000  •T•C•  01:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Creating an article for Com v Irwin is a great idea and something that I will try to work on but even in the case of having that article, I think it is still beneficial to have a page for Side Show Pizza with a reference to the new Com v Irwin page and a reference back. --Bblboy54 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would still be using the court case as a Primary source for the Side Show Pizza Article. Think of it this way, if the local troublemaker gets 45 days in jail, is the legal record of the judges order, alone enough to make him WP:Notable? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:00, 18 April 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.