Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Baine and Savarese

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 keep. Clear consensus not to delete. Renaming / reworking the scope can be done outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Baine and Savarese

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Article is about a single odometer scam with no lasting effect or impact, poor coverage relying on local news and press releases, and no indication of importance. PROD was removed and contested. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this appears to be just a routine federal prosecution with no impact beyond a local news cycle. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this has received multiple news articles about it. Also other court cases that are articles have less sources and are articles. This scam affected hundreds of people. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS exists and the case appears to be a landmark. Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those who post Keep votes should probably give the links to the existing significant coverage. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to as they are sourced/cited on the articles. (Even a google search pulls nearly a full page of information on the topic "Baine and Savarese".) Elijahandskip (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Landmark case with significant coverage. Analog Horror, (Speak) 04:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per postdlf. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a trial court decision that has not received anything beyond local coverage. It's not a precedent at all - that would require legal citations or an appellate case. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Baine and Savarese odometer scheme. The crime may be significant; the legal case is not, and is merely an aspect of the event. We have plenty of articles on scams and scandals that culminated in a legal prosecution, but which are structured to reflect the greater significance of the criminal event. BD2412 T 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elijahandskip, Gene93k, Bbarmadillo, Analog Horror, Postdlf, and Bearian: BD2412 T 04:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was investigated by the local news as early as 2014 (with that investigation noting a case going back to 2011), and the early reporting only mentions Baine, so I revise my proposal and suggest moving it to Oscar M. Baine odometer tampering scheme. BD2412 T 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would not oppose a move to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not oppose a move. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun rewriting the article to this effect. BD2412 T 16:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: I only said that if one votes Keep, they should provide the relevant sources to support the vote. Wikipedia is not a beauty pageant, where you just "like this girl". If anything my vote is Weak delete (looking at the current references at the article), but since the discussion is mostly if favor of making it an informational article, I don't mind. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did add the 2014 investigation source. BD2412 T 19:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BD2412, otherwise delete as not a notable court case. GregJackP Boomer! 15:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename pretty much that is all needed here. Orientls (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2020 (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.