Talk:John Doe law (Wisconsin)

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... it's a unique law relevant to a particular U.S. state. The right thing to do is have a merge proposal. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a law, unique to Wisconsin, that was used punitively against allies of the current governor (who is also a candidate for President. It's not a duplicate, though the current article doesn't provide enough context to make this clear. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Scott Walker has dropped out, although he may very well end up as the GOP's VP candidate. Feel free, IP editor, to expand the stub from reliable sources, existing or new, in order to provide more context.

In any case, deleting an article with 5 references in favor of an article with absolutely no references is problematic. Are the concepts related? Maybe, but who knows? There's no references to tether the other article to anything verifiable. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion, I support a merge proposal. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]