Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Louisiana v. Frisard

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 delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State of Louisiana v. Frisard

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

Non-notable legal case, no reliable sources, RfC resulted in consensus to delete

SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 15:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Reliable sources seem to be available: [1], [2], [3]. Pburka (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources linked above all mention the case briefly in the larger context of paternity cases, but with no analysis or anything but a brief summary of what's already found in the primary source. As there's no sources that speak to this case being important in this field of law (it's not even a
Supreme Court of Louisiana ruling), I think we can rule out a merge. Lord Roem (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No indication of notability. Availability of reliable sources isn't the issue; it's that this is just one of thousands of non-notable mid-level state appellate cases. TJRC (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per
  WP:GNG, availability of reliable sources is how we define notability. Sources=Notable. Pburka (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Well, partly. There must be "significant coverage" to meet GNG, and I believe this article fails that. Firstly, the mentions are trivial, it's just mentioned briefly as part of a list of larger concepts in child custody law. Even more, there's no source that says why this case was notable, that it impacted child custody law, that it even impacted Louisiana law in any way whatsoever. Lord Roem (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thousands of court cases are reported weekly in reliable sources. Very few of those cases are notable. Likewise, my name has been reliably printed in many telephone books, all reliable sources, but I would not claim that that would justify a Wikipedia article on me. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your name in the phone book would be a trivial mention. What we have here is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "Significant" means that sources address the subject directly in detail (per
      WP:GNG guidelines and keep it. Pburka (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - No indication of notability of the case in any of the cited sources. Just about every case gets cited somewhere. Crack open a copy of any volume of Shepard's Citations and boggle at the list. I'm still going with delete. TJRC (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you mean by "indication of notability"? Is there a guideline which describes that? Pburka (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean that there is no indication of notability of this case in any of the sources being cited to support the claim that this case is notable. Therefore, my position is that the article should be deleted as non-notable, and nothing in the sources, in my opinion, indicates otherwise. Done now. TJRC (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this article after seeing the case referenced on another site as a precedent for dishonest impregnation without intercourse still requiring child support. From the contents of the article it was not clear if this was the case or if he had simply not proven his story. It would be better if the article made this clearer, but I feel the case is notable, even if only due to people's misinterpretation of the outcome. JSekula71 (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, blogs have discussed this case. Blogs discuss EVERYTHING, from what the author ate for lunch to the pebble found in their shoe. We need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources discussing this case. We don't have that. The reason the article doesn't discuss whether there was or was not intercourse and/or dishonesty is that we do not have reliable sources discussing this. That these questions are the ONLY issues that blogs are discussing re this case is telling: The purported reason for this case's notability is simply not documented. -

talk) 15:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Counterpoint - While I am not one of the Wikipedia editing elite and there is probably an article that discusses at length why I'm wrong, I still feel that Wikipedia should be a place where you can get the current status of research or knowledge on a given topic. I don't understand why the article couldn't simply say that while many Bloggers consider this to be landmark case, no reliable sources have commented on it. In the spirit of sharing information and squashing misinformation, I think that it's appropriate to keep, even if it doesn't meet some strict standard that is supposed to be applied. JSekula71 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia reports what

talk) 06:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete With considerable searching, I have been unable to find anything other than the briefest of outlines of the case (in reliable sources). That several
talk) 15:13, 20 December 2012 (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.