Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger


 * 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   merge to Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is already an article on the case (see here). There is no reason to merge as the content of the proposed deleted one is already on the main article. There is no functional distinction in the cases both articles talk about. Lord Roem (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is the district court case, and the other is the supreme court case. There would be different justices and possibly a different outcome. I am not sure your logic that this is the same case. There are several examples of where both court cases articles are created in Wikipedia (e.g. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 and A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.). --MarsRover (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there, the district court decision was notable in its own right. But here, I don't see how the District Court made a major decision in the full context of the Supreme Court deciding. Lord Roem (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge & Rename - If articles are about a series of cases regarding the same issue, that issue is a single event, with the cases being extensions of said event. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but can also accept Merge/Redirect - Right now, not knowing how the SCOTUS will decide the other case, it could be possible that the SCOTUS case article may grow considerably particularly if the court rules for the states, and thus merging in right now may require a change later. At the moment, however, it could be merged but I see no issues with notability otherwise to push it that much. --M ASEM  (t) 15:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. Maybe I've missed something, but all this article seems to be about is the lower court proceedings of what is now before the Supreme Court pending a decision by them, and so it should be integrated into that article and probably trimmed.  Different opinions given by different courts within the same litigation are not "different cases," but rather the same case at different stages.  Normally there is not a reason to maintain separate articles unless there are multiple notable court opinions, such as if the case came back to the Supreme Court multiple times, in which case it might make sense to have one article for the litigation as a whole, and separate articles going into each SCOTUS opinion in detail.  I see no basis for that kind of splitting, at least at present.  Particularly since here, the Supreme Court will either affirm or reverse the 9th Circuit's decision, thus making the SCOTUS opinion the operative decision regardless of the outcome; the 9th Circuit's opinion will only then be relevant to the extent the Supreme Court adopts or disagrees with its reasoning.  postdlf (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this after reading the comments above. Lord Roem (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Postdlf. Keeping all the information in one article will allow interested readers to find it more easily.  The SCOTUS decision will end up being the main one, any relevant details from lower court opinions can be merged.  &mdash;SW&mdash; spill the beans 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Same case, different court doesn't mean separate articles.  MLA (talk) 18:13, 4 March 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.