Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two opinion of Judge Alito in bankruptcy case of doctor


 * 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 of the debate was delete. I also mercilessly deleted all redirects that were left behind when this page was moved. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Two opinion of Judge Alito in bankruptcy case of doctor
This is just bizarre and incoherent, and there's not any salvageable text. The title is also bizarre, (and ungramatical for that matter). I'm not sure it was speedyable as nonsense, so here it is. Morwen - Talk 11:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. I would have nominatated for CSD A6 (attack page), but the article really doesn't make enough sense to be an attack.  Movementarian 12:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to be point/counterpoint. The two parts look like they were written by different people, but neither look coherent enough to be a copyvio.  Morwen - Talk 12:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nonsensical, POV fork, terrible title ... this meets many different criteria for deletion. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Cyde. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 16:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we kept, it would be under the case name. As I read it, the case isn't that notable except that the judge hearing it is a Supreme Court nominee. Capitalistroadster 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.Gateman1997 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Near as I can tell from the history, it was intended as an opinion piece attack on an externally published article.  Wikipedia is not a blog. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that is now redirected to Matthews v. Pineo 1994 by Alito. If deleted, the redirect should be cleaned up too. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been moved there and been altered to be one, totally out of context sentence now, along with a couple of extlinks. If I knew anything about US law I'd make it a stub, but I don't.  Morwen - Talk 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete garbled nonsense Paul 03:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And it's been moved again, expanded slightly, but is still bizarre. Did this thing set a precedent or something? Morwen - Talk 08:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Kill it before it moves again! Wikipedia is not an editorial page. B.Wind 00:09, 16 December 2005 (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.