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. Courcelles 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.H. vs State of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Obscure juvenile appeals case that arguably should never have been brought, was brought on the wrong grounds anyway, and features a majority opinion that contradicts itself and a dissenting opinion that appears to identify the wrong person as the victim. The only meaningful conclusion to come of this is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for photographs stored online, which is common sense to most. A textbook example of bad caselaw that fails WP:NOTABILITY. JamesL910 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The individual merits of the case have no bearing on whether this article should remain on Wikipedia, therefore assertions as to whether the suit "should never have been brought" have no weight in this discussion. Now I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that often times decisions like this are necessary when it comes to establishing precedent for future cases. However, the Notability concerns would need to be addressed before I could support keeping this article, (see WP:HEY) -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a caselaw repository, and that individual cases should be both notable and significant to warrant inclusion as an articles (as opposed to merely being references in other articles). As it is, it's not notable, the only reason I even know of this case being that it was briefly referred to in a legal commentary I read, and it appears to be relatively insignificant legally, for the reasons stated. Yes, it can be argued that this case sets a precedent, but I would argue that there are far more prominent and less ambiguous cases establishing what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Admittedly I do not know for sure if such is the case in Florida, and perhaps someone who is more familiar with the law there could confirm or deny whether this is the case. If anyone from Wikiproject Law objects to the marking of this article for deletion, I'd be happy to hear their reasoning. JamesL910 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm agreeing with you on Notability. I'm only saying that the other assertions in your nomination statement are not valid reasons for deletion. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per sourcing. Per overall quality of article. ofcourse as most "crime" articles this one also needs a few more sources and perhaps a small clena up but deletion,no.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - regardless of the merits of the actual case. This is not the sort of case that has an article on Wikipedia. Past practice has limited this to either trial cases that have generated ongoing news, or appellate cases, and even then, only of the most important. This case badly fails that test. Wikipedia is not a mirror of findlaw.com. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Berian, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:NOR. Merits maybe one sentence in Sexting. THF (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per all of the above; article has serious notability issues. This case should be limited to a single citation in Expectation of privacy, if anything at all - it's certainly doubtful that it sets any meaningful precedent, owing to the level of division and confusion displayed by the court, and I could see a justification for opposing its inclusion even as a citation. -86.74.126.236 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2011 (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.