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. There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, after much extended time for review.
bd2412T02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks
SportingFlyer for pointing out my citation error: it's
ars technica not
Conde Nast. I don't see how it "fails" the
WP:GNG at all. In fact, with three solid newspaper stories, and two interpretation articles from well-known trade mags including
Wired (magazine), it deserves to stay. Are you perhaps unaware of the reputation of wired? It seems to be the magazine of record in the computer industry... so I inserted a sentence in the lede that begins with "The case is notable for", which alleviates the concern over
WP:CASES. Can you re-review it now?
PS, I fixed the "orphan" problem: at last count, two wikis pointed here. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magnoffiq (
talk •
contribs)
Keep: see above - no reply from proponent
SportingFlyer to my comments is indicative of his/her consent to Keep. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magnoffiq (
talk •
contribs)
That's not how Articles for Deletion works, if I were to consent to keeping this I would withdraw the nomination. The Wired article does not even mention the prosecution by name. It's clearly a non-notable crime.
SportingFlyerT·C06:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The Wired article is mentioned in the ars technica article. The fact that the crime (or a facet of the crime) garnered US national attention in at least two significant publications makes it ipso-facto notable.
Magnoffiq (
talk)
19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian:, I don't think the status of "legal precedent" is a criterion for AfD. Or do I err? Please indicate here the reasons you think it is an AfD criterion. In any case, the text that follows has been added to the lede:
Keep - It's not totally obvious from the way that the article is written, but this article is significant because it was the first major case which made use of the Canadian Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. That's the claim to fame. May His Shadow Fall Upon YouTalk17:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, it appears Wikipedia is the only place where it's reported as the first, which would make it
WP:OR. There are a couple sources saying the case used Canadian help, but they're brief and don't demonstrate notability.
SportingFlyerT·C19:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Of the documents I've been able to find, I haven't seen the judgment, but I can't find anywhere that discusses the case in that sense. The "claim to fame" isn't mentioned anywhere, the crime wasn't notable (36 months probation?), none of the sources even significantly cover the case (but instead talk about some email-related technicalities.) I don't have any problem mentioning that in say an article on Hushmail, but nobody has actually shown sources that pass
WP:SYNTH demonstrating the notability of this case, or this crime.
SportingFlyerT·C02:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - In the discussion above, a commentator asks "I don't think the status of "legal precedent" is a criterion for AfD. Or do I err? Please indicate here the reasons you think it is an AfD criterion.". Of course, "legal precedent" is not an AFD criterion but it is a dimension of "lasting effect" - see
WP:LASTING. Candidly, this is a current event that fails
WP:EVENT. A straw in the wind that this case has had no lasting effect is that all the sources in the page are within two months of the case.
2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (
talk)
21:57, 26 September 2019 (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.
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. There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, after much extended time for review.
bd2412T02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks
SportingFlyer for pointing out my citation error: it's
ars technica not
Conde Nast. I don't see how it "fails" the
WP:GNG at all. In fact, with three solid newspaper stories, and two interpretation articles from well-known trade mags including
Wired (magazine), it deserves to stay. Are you perhaps unaware of the reputation of wired? It seems to be the magazine of record in the computer industry... so I inserted a sentence in the lede that begins with "The case is notable for", which alleviates the concern over
WP:CASES. Can you re-review it now?
PS, I fixed the "orphan" problem: at last count, two wikis pointed here. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magnoffiq (
talk •
contribs)
Keep: see above - no reply from proponent
SportingFlyer to my comments is indicative of his/her consent to Keep. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magnoffiq (
talk •
contribs)
That's not how Articles for Deletion works, if I were to consent to keeping this I would withdraw the nomination. The Wired article does not even mention the prosecution by name. It's clearly a non-notable crime.
SportingFlyerT·C06:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The Wired article is mentioned in the ars technica article. The fact that the crime (or a facet of the crime) garnered US national attention in at least two significant publications makes it ipso-facto notable.
Magnoffiq (
talk)
19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian:, I don't think the status of "legal precedent" is a criterion for AfD. Or do I err? Please indicate here the reasons you think it is an AfD criterion. In any case, the text that follows has been added to the lede:
Keep - It's not totally obvious from the way that the article is written, but this article is significant because it was the first major case which made use of the Canadian Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. That's the claim to fame. May His Shadow Fall Upon YouTalk17:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, it appears Wikipedia is the only place where it's reported as the first, which would make it
WP:OR. There are a couple sources saying the case used Canadian help, but they're brief and don't demonstrate notability.
SportingFlyerT·C19:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Of the documents I've been able to find, I haven't seen the judgment, but I can't find anywhere that discusses the case in that sense. The "claim to fame" isn't mentioned anywhere, the crime wasn't notable (36 months probation?), none of the sources even significantly cover the case (but instead talk about some email-related technicalities.) I don't have any problem mentioning that in say an article on Hushmail, but nobody has actually shown sources that pass
WP:SYNTH demonstrating the notability of this case, or this crime.
SportingFlyerT·C02:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - In the discussion above, a commentator asks "I don't think the status of "legal precedent" is a criterion for AfD. Or do I err? Please indicate here the reasons you think it is an AfD criterion.". Of course, "legal precedent" is not an AFD criterion but it is a dimension of "lasting effect" - see
WP:LASTING. Candidly, this is a current event that fails
WP:EVENT. A straw in the wind that this case has had no lasting effect is that all the sources in the page are within two months of the case.
2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (
talk)
21:57, 26 September 2019 (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.