Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United states v downs


 * 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. Secret account 04:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

United states v downs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable court case. Article was PRODed and seconded by two editors who could not find any significant mentions of this case. This editor could also not find any significant mentions, and so bringing to AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of importance or significance. It is present in legal databases but doesn't seem to be discussed elsewhere. Even with press coverage it would probably fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable case only mentioned in a few places. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 09:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, unsourced and non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is sourced to a law report (the cryptic abbreviation that follows the name) and a book by Kanowitz (see my comments in the AfD debate for State v. Tapp). James500 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - it's barely notable, but it is a 7th Circuit case, has been cited widely within that circuit, and could become notable in the future, if relied on by SCOTUS. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article consists of approximately one sentence (I say approximately, because it has grammatical problems that suggest it could be more than one with missing punctuation) and has no secondary sources. The article doesn't indicate the court's judgment, nor is it sourced to any book by Kanowitz. It may be possible to write a decent article about this case, but this is not it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2013 (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.