Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Chan
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 was no consensus, so keep for now. (aeropagitica) 09:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The case doesn't make any claim for the cases' notability. If this changes then I'd be delighted. There doesn't seem to be any notability criterion for law cases. JASpencer 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the case is one of many lawsuits involved in the RIAA's campaign against casual file sharing. I'd say that's notable. Mitaphane talk 03:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely borderline keep she's out there, but I can't find any independant, verifiable and NPOV news sources. The thing that sets her apart from the rest of the sued downloaders is that her case was dismissed. Scrapes WP:BIO (second criteria from the bottom). Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- the criterion for establishing notability is not to simply be a defendant in a court case. Yes, she's young and yes, the case was dismissed, but she's at best a note within the Recording Industry Association of America article. SkerHawx 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At best, the article should be Priority Records v. Brittany Chan. since it is the case that is notable, not the defendant. However, there is so little in this article and it is unlikely that there will ever be much more so Delete, merging into an article about the RIAA lawsuits if such an article exists as I have to believe it does. --Richard 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or possibly merge into a related article. This was certainly a notable case which embarassed the RIAA two different ways: firstly for suing a young child, then when the case was dropped. Deserves to be covered somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any notability standards on court cases? JASpencer 16:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I know of. If I had to make a general statement, though, I'd say that cases which make national or international news would usually be kept, while ones with only local attention usually wouldn't. Of course, if any of the participants are notable, it could be mentioned in their article. For example, the Nick Nolte article mentions his drunk-driving arrest even though it was by no means a major or important crime. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So the test is essentially (at least for recent cases) how much media coverage they produce or whether they have a notable party? It seems to work - although the issue of precedence is important. JASpencer 18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I know of. If I had to make a general statement, though, I'd say that cases which make national or international news would usually be kept, while ones with only local attention usually wouldn't. Of course, if any of the participants are notable, it could be mentioned in their article. For example, the Nick Nolte article mentions his drunk-driving arrest even though it was by no means a major or important crime. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 7 October 2006 (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.