Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative facts (law)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Term appears in no legal dictionary and citations do not show a fixed meaning or noteworthy usage in law. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick read suggests it may be duplicative of alternative pleading. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Duplicative of alternative pleading, which (unlike this) is actually a legal term of art. Allowing this article to exist creates the false impression that "alternative facts" is an actual legal term, and all this page does is describe the way alternative pleadings work, in a slightly different way. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article seems to have useful content and alternative pleading is a rather short article SeraphWiki (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have tried to move relevant information. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite what Breitbart wants people to believe, "alternative facts" is not a real legal term. Any useful material in this article should be moved to the article alternative pleading. Then this article should be deleted, unless consensus favors the possible alternative option of turning this article into a redirect to alternative pleading, which I would also be willing to go along with. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart has nothing to do with anything. 18 citations are given and not one is Breitbart nor related to it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectanybody searching for this inaccurate legal term is gonna be looking for information on alternative pleading, which is the same thing under a more correct name. Classic redirect case. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]