Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States[edit]

While adding wikilinks for Vaughn R. Walker, I discovered this orphan WP:FORK. I'd suggest merger to NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, but the WP:COATRACK material is wildly out of date (there don't seem to have been substantive edits in over a year, during which there have been several court decisions tearing apart some of the more poorly-reasoned district court opinions, not to mention bipartisan congressional legislation that has generated its own litigation), factually inaccurate, and incomplete, with one-sided reliance on unreliable sources. Even if the article were kept, and even if you disagreed with me on the NPOV problems, it would require a complete rewrite from top to bottom to have any quality. THF (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominateor puts it perfectly. While there are sources, and while AFD is not cleanup, we need to take a tougher stance against coatracks. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reason why any salvageable material can't be dealt with (with appropriate concision) as part of the parent article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see the rack for the coats. §FreeRangeFrog 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bladeofgrass (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a place to debate mergers. Significant portions of text can not be found in other articles, and there is no specific article on the "legal challenges". Invalid arguments like "material is out of date", or "there are inaccuracies" only show the lack of any rationale for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]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.