Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore v. Harris (Harris II)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Rob 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a legal journal. Stifle 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sez who? Okay, I agree the article as it stands isn't very encyclopaedic. But it could be improved greatly, if only it received a little attention. As a general rule, I find that the cases people know about and want to write about — e.g. the ones we hear about in Law class — are such because they are notable. I don't think lawcruft is something likely to cause problems for Wikipedia in future. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article were simply titled Gore v. Harris, I'd say redirect to Florida election recount, but nobody's gonna type in the title above, so delete. Blackcats 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep cleanup and expand. Notable court case but needs references. Possibly move to Gore v. Harris. Capitalistroadster 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Capitalistroadster. DeathThoreau 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This was a huge case! It practically decided the future of the nation five years ago! I don't think we'd be in Iraq if Gore had won ... but anyway, enough politics, just keep it. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Capitalistroadster. Tempted to say "merge and delete," but the outcome of Gore v. Harris has substantial implications on U.S. election policy and the role of the judiciary. These do need to be added to make the notability issue clear, though. Tim Pierce 03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't say merge and delete, please. Like, ever. There's only one case I can think of where a page should not be kept as a redirect to a merged article, and that's when the original title is clearly inappropriate (e.g. defamatory). Even then, we still keep the article, just at a different title (usually as a subpage of the merge target). The GFDL requires that we credit our contributors, even if the work they did took place on an article outside the merge target fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, cleanup massively. I took election law... vaguely recall covering this case as a distinct chapter in the whole debacle. BD2412 T 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Emphatic merge into Bush v. Gore - the two Gore v. Harris cases were the precursors to Bush v. Gore (in fact, the second Gore v. Harris was relabeled Bush v. Gore when it went to the United States Supreme Court) (sorry, force of habit). B.Wind 01:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.