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 merge to Alaska lunar sample displays. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C. Anderson, an individual Plaintiff v. The State of Alaska and Alaskan State Museums, and agency of the State, Defendants

[edit]

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

I don't think the lawsuit is itself independently notable, and I believe the notable information is already there in the Alaska lunar sample displays article. Delete. (If consensus is not to delete it, perhaps merge it.) --Nlu (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 12. Snotbot t • c » 17:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose deletion~~ Merge I've added two additional sources, so far. the lawsuit is important in that it deals with the legal question of ownership of the display and the moon rock. I've added another source to the many that are already there. The case has not (so far as I know) been finally resolved or decided, and one can reasonably anticipate further legal developments. Notability is clear, in my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alaska lunar sample displays. The case itself has not received significant coverage, especially since it's a local state court matter (as opposed to federal). Nevertheless, it seems it would fit better as a new section in the main article, something like 'Litigation' or 'Legal disputes'. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable legal case by any stretch of the imagination. I can't anticipate that this would be a notable case in property law; cf. Pierson v. Post. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alaska lunar sample displays - per the same arguments as Lord Roem above.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alaska lunar sample displays - per Lord Roem above.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:43, 15 November 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.