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.

Donofrio v. Wells[edit]

The result was Merged into Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I'm going to exercise administrative discretion here and end this discussion early. Following a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about how to deal with a metastizing series of articles relating to Obama's citizenship, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been created to provide a home for these fringey-but-notable issues. Donofrio v. Wells and similar subsections of Andy Martin (U.S. politician), Philip J. Berg and Alan Keyes have been condensed and merged into a roundup of legal cases on this issue; see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Litigation. ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is really nothing here. The case doesn't have significant history with which to provide context. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article violates WP:RECENT. Evb-wiki (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not news. Grsz ¹¹ 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterate Delete per Supreme Court rejection. Grsz ¹¹ 18:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not even a supreme court case. If it is taken up by the Supreme Court, then it will be valid. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The court did not announce today they are hearing this case, which presumably means they have decided not to hear it. The full list including cases that were denied hearing will be available Monday, 12/8. At that point, this article will be about either 1) a frivolous case the Supreme Court rejected (extremely likely) or 2) an historic attempt to subvert the outcome of a US presidential election (extremely unlikely). I suggest simply waiting until Monday. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, this AfD will still be open on Monday unless it snowballs. Grsz ¹¹ 04:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess we'll wait, since that will apparently affect votes, so WP:SNOW is more or less out the window anyway... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete depending on the final outcome of the Supreme Court case. It's a P0V content fork whose only purpose would be to keep a fringe theory alive, although I don't question the sincerity of its creator as such - it just doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handle such questions the same way as in the McCain article: "McCain, having been born in the (Panama) Canal Zone, would if elected have become the first president who was born outside the current 50 states. This raised a potential legal issue, since the United States Constitution requires the president to be a natural-born citizen of the United States. A bipartisan legal review[214] and a unanimous but non-binding Senate resolution[215] both concluded that he is a natural-born citizen, but the matter is still a subject of some legal controversy.[216]" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Abstain I did not create this article POV. I indeed do not understand what this really means, and turned to Wikipedia to know what was going on. Since the article was missing, I created it. I guess we can wait until they decide whether to hear it or not. Tony (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into broader article about the various legal attempts to stop Barack Obama from becoming president. The Supreme Court did not accept this case today - Monday will simply confirm that. Frivolous lawsuits brought to the Supreme Court are not worthy of their own Wikipedia article. Priyanath ^talk 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see Wikidemon's point below, and agree that the content of this article could go into a larger article about the fringe theories that people will believe about Obama (he is going to provide alot of fodder for the supermarket tabloids for eight years). By keeping this article, though, it only gives credibility to a fringey lawsuit. It's only notability is its nuttability. Priyanath ^talk 14:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider merging into a broader article about lawsuits or possibly conspiracy theories and lawsuits about Obama's citizenship and eligibility for the presidency. The subject is notable, perhaps not in the way intended by its author, but as documentation of a fringe theory. The LA times and UPI sources, significant mentions in mainstream major second party sources, amply demonstrate notability. Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and to answer Priyanath, frivolous lawsuits do sometimes get covered here. It all depends on whether they are of interest to the point of notability (as demonstrated by sources). The attacks on Obama's eligibility are vexatious to the extreme, but the issue brought up by the case - the exact definition of natural-born citizen, which has not been adjudicated - is interesting and the fact that people keep trying this is itself a curious social/political phenomenon. Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a place for it, it's probably within the natural born citizen article, if it can be presented fairly - and balanced with questions that were raised about McCain's eligibility, if that's not already in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical example of political and legal idiocy, and will be quoted in hstoryies of the campaign forever. There's already enough material.DGG (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a take on it that I hadn't considered - Category:Political and legal idiocy. That might face a POV challenge, though. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~(see below) Oddly, the nominator has convinced me we should keep it. The phrase "the case has gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works" , which was added to the article by the same user who nommed it for deletion, indicates the notability that this case has attained, and, though the case seems spurious and it is highly unlikely, according to FactCheck.org article, that it has any merit at all, this concept of obsessively trying to unseat the President-elect with these challenges seems to have captured the public imagination, as well as drawing the attention of the Supreme Court and the media. How it became notable, and whether or not "educated people" believe a word of it doesn't change the basic decision we face here, which is if the article meets the general notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also discovered this case was mentioned today on NPR, hardly your usual source of right wing, anti-Obama fringe theories. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve judgment on NPR's take on it until (or if) it gets discussed on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: Even if it's news-y, the subject matter means its will probably be seen as a big deal (as already demonstrated in the article itself and in Beeblebrox's comment above mine). If it absolutely must be deleted, most of the content can at least be moved to Natural-born citizen#Cases in other courts relating specifically to the "natural born citizen" clause or another subsection of that page. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge too. I feel that while this and the other cases have no merit as also agreed by a variety if legal watchers. Yet, with the supreme court deciding not to hear this case, we will still continue to hear about this case/idea. Someone will always be bring this back up and at one point in the very near future, this will take the status of a small conspiracy theory. My thoughts are that we should treat it as such and either keep it with notations that it is a theory, or merge it into the appropriate pages that would better deal with it. Brothejr (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment My guess is that the whole reason they are considering this case at all is so they can make a ruling that Barack Obama is legally qualified to be president, rendering all such lawsuits moot... Beeblebrox (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the idea of having a final court of appeal, isn't it? They make a final decision and then it's decided that way for good (or, in the United States, until judges are replaced by the other party and the balance of power changes :) ). - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has to be a notable legal case, whether the SCOTUS hands down judgments or not. The question of whether Obama is legally qualified to be president is of critical importance. The argument in this case, while it may be unlikely to succeed, is a notable legal argument and has received non-trivial coverage all over the place. I bet that US legal journals will be carrying this over the next few months. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL -- how do we know journals will be talking about this? There is no assertion in the article that it is a notable legal argument. The only assertion of notability is that this concerns Obama. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fringe conspiracy theory, filed by a nut, about to be kicked into the dustbin etc.... (i noticed this articles creation because of a redirect created from the deleted berg v. obama article, which was still on my watchlist).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FORK. Embarrassment to Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a no-brainer as a notable lawsuit. duh? Manitobamountie (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wait to see how the Supreme Court acts in the next few days. Keep if the court decides to hear the case; but if they refuse to hear the case, this article should be deleted and any info of more general interest should be incorporated into Natural-born citizen. Richwales (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear Donofrio v. Wells (read here, there is no valid reason for a separate article about this case. Any info worth keeping in the article should be incorporated as appropriate, either into the Natural-born citizen article, or into some other article devoted to objections of this sort in general. Richwales (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article goes beyond "news." It relates to one of the most important elections of this decade, and i cant fathom how someone would justify its removal. I believe this afd is politically motivated, but that's my opinion. also, it's sufficiently sourced. if need be, i can link 40+ articles that fall well below the quality and notability standards of this article....Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - because there are articles out there of less quality and notability does not improve either variable for this article. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A frivolous and unfounded lawsuit does not go "beyond news." It's removal is simple based on the fact that if there were wikipages for every idiotic lawsuit there would be millions of articles lacking notability. This article is only notable to those with a partisan agenda. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS, RECENT and FRINGE. Or perhaps Merge to whichever article we discuss the Secret Muslim, Granny is an Illegal Alien, and the Pals Around With Terrorists memes. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article is heavily sourced by WND and the LA Times Blog, hardly reliable sources. The only assertion of notability appears to be that it concerns Obama. Dozens and dozens of cases are not heard by SCOTUS each year so the fact that they may hear this does not assert notability on its own. No mention is given of who Wells or Donofrio are and the logistics around why Wells is being sued instead of Obama. --guyzero | talk 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in six months this idiocy will be as forgotten as Joe the Plumber. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the guy in this article? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the one. And in 6 months, barring any new developments, such as Joe's appointment to OSHA or something, that article should also probably go up for deletion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to Beeblebrox for removing my previous comment. At least, I think it's him, as he is the only editor in history. Clearly this discussion has become more politically-charged than I anticipated, which has snowballed to become a text-book bandwagon. We need to separate the supportors of Obama and those who question his status as a natural-born citizen. Whether this case is frivolous or not is entirely irrelevant. It's notability is what justifies its existence. It is also one of the few cases being argued that actually contains any traces of true evidence. Remember - wikipedia is NOT about the truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You had mistakenly duplicated the entire text from this section, and he reverted it. You're reading things into the arguments. Wikipedia has a responsibility to not lend too much credence to fringe theories, no matter how much momentary publicity they get. If the Court hears it, then it might be worth discussing. If not, it's kaput. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, that was an accident. However, in doing the revert, he also erased my comment. The reason behind the duplication was there was an editing conflict when I clicked submit, and somehow I pasted my comment over again and that carried over the entire page. Weird. Anyways - since when is there a stipulation that requires a court case be actually "heard" before it is acceptable to be on wikipedia. It's been recognized by the United States Supreme Court, and even commented on my Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, what more do you need? Obviously this is yet another politically-driven bandwagon fueled by partisan politics. If this was any other topic no one would care even in the slightest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Bugs is correct, I undid your edit because you duplicated the entire conversation. It had nothing to do with politics or POV pushing, just that you messed up the AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the court doesn't choose to hear it, then by implication it has no merit, and continuing to make a thing out of it here, especially an entire article's worth, is POV-pushing. It would be fair to give it a sentence or two in the article about natural-born citizenry, next to a line or two about the similar situation with McCain. One thing that's interesting is that questions were raised about both candidates' natural-born qualifications, which I suspect is rare. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course you think it's POV pushing, you disagree with the case itself. Just because something is controversial does not mean it should be sandbagged. These are the arguments I see: A) No merit - plenty of cases being pushed to challenge Obama's presidency, this is just another futile attempt. B) Article is blasted with bias and political opinion. C) Sources provided do not adhere to the standards of wikipedia. In my opinion, these are the ideas that need to be scrutinized. Simply shouting, "It's frivolous, just another neo-con conspiracy, POV pushing, etc..." doesn't mean anything. Saying it over and over and over again just makes you look even more politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case is supported by reliable and verifiable sources to support notability. The case will be unlikely to determine that Obama is ineligible to serve as President and far more likely to establish the guidelines for what it means to be natural born. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already an article on natural born citizenry. Why does this case (especially if it gets rejected) merit an entire article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the case itself has drawn attention from reliable and verifiable sources, independent of the concept of the natural-born citizen. I do agree that Donofrio v. Wells should be referenced there. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — Whether or not the idea of the suit is a fringe theory and complete stupid (It is, just admit it), the article itself needs to be kept. The suit has been mentioned by enough reliable sources, including NPR, to merit its own article. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether it reaches the Supreme Court or anything else, its several reliable sources demonstrate its notability. If you think it's too minor to have its own article, request a merge or something like that; but it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of just outright keeping an article on this one case, why not roll it into another article? I have a feeling that while this case might probably be closed tomorrow with the supreme court rejecting it, we are not going to hear the last of this. This most likely will morph into some type of theory that various web blogs and such will keep alive like any other conspiracy theory. My thinking is that instead of having an article on it's own, why not create a much larger article covering the theories just like we have for all the JFK conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, and so on. That way if someone wants to know about this case they will see it listed on the same page as a variety of other cases. Then if this case becomes so notable to outlast the recent attention it is getting now, then an article should be written then. This case/issue still falls under the WP:RECENT policy and the only reason the article was created in the first case was due to the fact it was not included any where else. So lets give this case a home where it should be included instead of being it's own article. Brothejr (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that once he gets inaugurated, this nonsense will be sufficiently marginalized as to be irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Brothejr's comment (just above). Donofrio vs. Wells is not notable on its own merits, but only as part of a larger series of lawsuits and conspiracy claims. That is what the article should be about, and Donofrio vs. Wells belongs there. For example, Berg (of Berg vs. Obama) is a big 9/11 truther who also sued to have Bush and Cheney charged with a few thousand counts of murder for 9/11. These should all be lumped into one article about the various citizenship/birth/Kenya/Indonesia theories and lawsuits, and the characters driving them. Priyanath ^talk 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. Merge into a to-be-created article dealing with the general topic of anti-Obama lawsuits. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "[t]he lawsuit also challenged the eligibility of two other presidential candidates: John McCain, who was born in Panama, and Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero, who the suit claims was born in Nicaragua." These other challeges are, of course, now moot. See Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Donofrio v. Wells for one article that discusses several challenges to Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would be amenable to the hypothetical larger article about the "Obama birth certificate truther movement" or whatever we might call these nutjobs; the Donofrio v. Wells article could be the seed for such a larger article, which would of course be appropriately retitled. Until that article exists, though, this one should be kept. DemocraplypseNow argues, "This article is only notable to those with a partisan agenda...." I agree that it is notable only to such persons, but there are enough such persons to justify a Wikipedia article. The merits of the lawsuit have only tangential relevance to its notability. JamesMLane t c 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Has multiple reliable sources. Is clearly more than just a short news article. I agree with some comments that it may make more sense to merge into a larger article about challenges to Obama's citizenship and ability to become President but that's a separate issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:FRINGE nutjobbery relying on unreliable sources for a story that fizzled like a firecracker in a rainstorm. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly suggesting that CNN, NPR, and as noted below, the Chicago Tribune are "unreliable sources"? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, etc...only note the fact that it was a failed court case, and little more. The "unreliably sourced" was in reference to the worldnetdailies and the like that were used in an attempt to assert the notability of the court case. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to broader article about challenges to Obama's citizenship. Donofrio v. Wells is a news story from the WP:FRINGE. The case is going nowhere.[1] It is all too easy to get a burst of press attention with a fringe petition like this. This Obama-is-not-a-citizen nutjobbery may notable as a whole, but not every individual assertion merits a Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cmt- Now that SCOTUS declined to hear Donofrio v. Wells, [2] this should be a footnote in Natural-born citizen (with the others), at best. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment snowball it already. Case not heard, nor ever well be heard, in any US court of law. Only claim to notability is that famous people were named in a suit that courts refused to hear at every level.

We are nowhere near a WP:SNOW situation. There are numerous votes to keep and merge. Notability of legal cases is not based on the merits of the case, but on coverage in reliable sources, like any other topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with jus soli or Natural-born citizen. Plenty of good cites exist; it is an important precedent. Of course, it was a frivolous case, but that does not make it any less notable. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No precedent, important or otherwise, was set. Refusing to hear a case without comment sets no precedent.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This case set no federal precedent, and is merely a state case. If we accept a whole article about this case, then there's no reason not to accept whole articles about each of the other cases on Obama's eligibility. If someone wants to write an article that describes all of those other cases, then it would be fine to include some info about Donofrio's case. But this whole article for one state case is excessive, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The conspiracy theory surrounding Obama's natural-born citizenship status has gotten enough coverage in reliable source to make the conspiracy theory notable enough to be included in its own article in a manner similar to how 9/11 conspiracy theories and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is treated. This particular lawsuit may not be large enough to warrant its own stand-alone article, but it has been covered in numerous reliable sources and is verifiable enough to include on Wikipedia. I see a number of people tossing WP:FRINGE out as a reason as to why this article should be deleted, but the usage of WP:FRINGE for this purpose is contradicted by the guideline itself. According to WP:FRINGE, conspiracy theories are not to be given undue weight, but may be included in articles as long as they are verifiable via reliable sources. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead is 100% correct about WP:Fringe. Wikipedia has tons of articles about fringe theories that describe the theories without endorsing them. But I don't see how the present article can currently be merged, if there's nothing to merge it into. Additionally, I'm very skeptical that a consolidated article about Obama-eligibility theories will be written neutrally or accurately, but people are more than welcome to try. Judging from discussion at the Barack Obama talk page, it would be very difficult to overcome misconceptions about the fringe theories.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even the NY Times is covering it, also as a fringe meme: "This is the kind of doubt-bending thing that lives independently online, but from the looks of today’s decision by the highest court in the land, the accusation isn’t gaining much ground in the realm of reality."[4] An article about this movement should focus on the fringieness of the theories and the wackiness of the people filing the suits, since that's what is being covered by mainstream sources. Also see Change They Can Litigate: The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president Priyanath ^talk 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe and only got only media attention because the media are desperate for new things to talk about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a media archive and we don't have articles on numerous silly season matters. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks everyone for all the help and additional information. I would like this article to stay for the useful information, or at the very least Merge. Tony (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- if no catch-all available, keep. Tons of people believe or at least question the President-elect's -- eligibility to be; and Wikipedia provides a public service by any article it sponsors, subjecting such hyped-up concerns to impartial scrutiny. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Supreme court tossed the case, and with it they tossed any chance it had a notability. l'aquatique || talk 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As expected, the SCOTUS rejected this. It would only be notable if they had taken it up. Frivolous lawsuits based on fringe theories are filed all the time. They only become notable if the judiciary is receptive to their arguments. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since when? Plenty of rejected court cases are featured on wikipedia. Find me rule for that statement. Also - all these cases have been rejected based off technicallities, not merit. Remember that when you're arguing notability. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid rationale to keep an article. How or why a case was dismissed has nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY either. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's dead. Bereft of life, let it rest in peace. Unless the petitioner is going to claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because of a Caesarean section, its fifteen minutes of fame are finished. Not only is it Beyond the Fringe, there is no purpose for giving this absurdity undue weight. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. You clearly did not research the case. the court offered no reason for denial or the willingness for commentary. as stated, it can be assumed there was a technical reason, as the petitioner had no standing. it takes more than merit to appeal to the supreme court. after all, theyre going to be dealing with 20+ more cases being submitted (especially by notable politician alan keys). if anything, this article offers and easy reference for the rest of the cases being considered. the article is sourced and commented by mainstream media, so at this point we're beyond fringe and conspiracy...that's a moot argument. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a general article on Obama fringe/conspiracy theories. The Obama fringe theories are notable enough as a political and social phenomina, but separate articles in the individual theories gives them undue weight and distorts the context in which they have arisen. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but that is a terrible suggestion. It is bad enough that pages like this exist or that POV vandals keep inserting the conspiracy nuttery into the main Obama article. I'd rather not see all of the fringe junk collated and collected into a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been proven that this is more than a conspiracy theory. Therefore, dismissing this article as such is simply naive, ignorant, and/or politically motivated. so let's drop the conspiracy theory argument (not that it isnt true) and focus on the core problems. repeating the same excuses over and over and over again only makes you look stupid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, i will add the the tally stands at 14 keeps to 13 deletes. im not familiar with the exact rules in what results in a total delete... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it not "proven that this is more than a conspiracy theory", it's not even up to that level. It's more on the level of the morons who think the Apollo program was faked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories has its own article. If kept, this nonsense should be merged into Barack Obama birth hoax conspiracy theories. It is becoming a notable conspiracy theory, and looks to have legs. Priyanath ^talk 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, and it efficiently shoots down every one of the so-called "theories" about the Apollo program. Barack Obama birth hoax conspiracy theories could be handled the same way. The difference is, there are a lot of idiots who think we didn't go to the moon, and only a few who think (or wish) Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree Baseball Bugs here. This case should be rolled into a page with all the other cases and whatever else that had not made it to the courts. While yes this did make it to all the news stations, the cases and other cases notability is not about a real question of Obama's validity but instead of the absurdness of the cases. We have more then enough reliable sources that debunk these cases that we could easily write an article on these conspiracy theories and handle it the same way as the other hoax pages. Maybe we can just simply rewrite this article into such an article. Brothejr (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing this article to hoax is beyond absurd. The article provides a proven and sourced outlook questioning the validity of Obama's citizenship. rejection by the supreme court does not dismiss the merit nor the notability of this article. wikipedia is NOT about truth. it's an actual court case that made it all the way to the highest judicial branch in the country - meaning the case had to go through other courts before hand, as far as i know. anyways, we're running in circles here, and at this point i dont think it would be appropriate to merge/delete or move this article anywhere this early. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, the name calling is completely inexcusable. stop it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, there is no proof whatsoever that these stories have any validity. And what name-calling are you referring to??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there's plenty of proof that these stories have validity, especially considering the fact that Obama has spent over a million dollars in campaign money to prevent the release of his real authentic birth certificate. but that's besides the point. the point is, this article is well sourced, and ur belief that it is a conspiracy theory or a hoax is not an opinion shared by all. calling people lunatics, fundamentalists, nutcases, nutjobs, or any force of dismissive tone that would reduce the opposing opinion is not the cordial way to settle things. anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I've already !voted so I won't do it again, but if it is merged it should be into a more narrow category with some reasonable focus, such as attacks / theories on Obama's citizenship and eligibility. That is a moderately notable subject per a fair number of reliable sources, and actually an interesting topic - why do people get this idea in their heads? No doubt political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, historians, etc., will be publishing articles on it here and there. An all purposes "fringe theories about Obama" or "political attacks on Obama' article would be too broad and risks becoming a mess. Having said that, a "merge" outcome is essentially a "keep" outcome because it means keeping the content. As of now there is no other article to merge the content into so essentially we would have to retitle this one and then allow people to add other legal challenges and notable fringe theories. Good luck patrolling that article :) Wikidemon (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The court dismissed this with no comment. Why don't we wait until we hear what the Supremes have to say about the Berg and Keyes lawsuit, if they do, before we decide? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment* I moved the ot section to the discussion. continue ranting there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are no fun at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, must be because im a conspiracy theory-supporting nutcase.Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humor is lacking in a wide variety of different people. Not just conspiracy theorists. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. There is enough here to attain some notability, even if it results in a fairly short article. Grand master ka 06:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm looking up the article right now after finding out the case got thrown out, and it seems that this article has enough context to stand, given this article quotes a legal scholar and a couple of other commentators. I mean, if wikipedia can have so many articles about untalented one-hit wonders/short-lived TV shows/unsuccessful movies, then a failed supreme court case article can stay if there's enough coverage to warrant. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or (less preferable) Delete. This case did attract a certain amount of media attention, although virtually no one in the mainstream media took it seriously; but I'm sympathetic to the WP:NOTNEWS arguments that in six months' time, it will have been forgotten entirely. As the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, I don't think there's a strong argument for keeping this as a separate article; but it would be appropriate, I believe, as part of a larger article on rumours/conspiracy theories about Obama (or even as part of his article, though there would be definite WP:BLP issues there). That would probably be the best way of handling this, preferable to outright deletion. Terraxos (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And salt the earth, so it does not get recreated - should be done even if it gets merged. This uis news and respectable sources are only reporting on it because it is silly hoax/conspiracy/nuttiness/fundiness/craziness. And we need better guidelines on that sort of thing in news. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt well - the article is a POV fork to start with (not to mention violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS). The article is a running political commentary dressed up in the form of a WP:SYNTHESIS. Move away, there's nothing to see here. The assertion (unsupported by reliable sources) of a person "spending ... millions of dollars" to prevent the State of Hawaii from releasing his birth records (which, under Hawaii state law, are public records) does not add anything credible to this discussion in terms of Wikipedia policy and editorial guidelines. Again, the court case is dead - the same should be true of the tempest in a teapot that some people are trying to push as a "valid" article despite Wikipedia policies stated above. B.Wind (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Votes shouldn't count if you don't know about the case you're voting on. The issue in this case was not about a birth certificate.LedRush (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The issue has gotten a lot of mainstream press and is notable for that reason alone. Also, this is an interesting constitutional issue that probably won't be answered any time soon.LedRush (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This case sets no legal precedent and brings up no constitutional issues. Obama is a natural born citizen, McCain had a congressional vote allowing him to run. This is a state case that was thrown out at both the state and national level. It is only of importance to people on the fringe. This is not encyclopedic content. Furthermore, its not news. Sure a few news outlets have reported on it. They also reported on a woman in Bloomington, Illinois who makes Christmas Ornaments out of deer droppings. Where is the article for that? It should be removed completely, or altered into a list of conspiracy theories. This isn't worthy of its own page. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that the case doesn't bring up constitutional issues is odd, because that is the only type of issue covered in the case. Also, while there is no precedent (because the case was not accepted) it doesn't mean that important issues aren't raised by it. The fact that mainstream media has picked up on the issue and admitted that it makes an interesting, if biased and lunatic fringe, argument concerning the consitutional issues demonstrates that it is notable.LedRush (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a constitutional issue with the White House being White. Sure, Im just saying it. I swear, Ill create blogs, and the news will eventually report it, can someone tell me how to create the page for it? This case brings up constitutional issues that DO NOT EXIST. Period. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are just plain wrong. There is a constitutional debate regarding what it means to be a "natural born citizen". The White House isn't in the constitution, and so your comparison is just silly.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole arguement is silly. NBC has always been interpreted to mean "Born on U.S. Soil" Obama was, therefore Natural Born Citizen. You are just plain wrong. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, everyone calm down. I think at this point it is more than obvious that no administrator is going to rule towards a delete or merge. considering that, we should be spending our time actually revising the article instead of bickering over its merit/notability/etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing's for sure. Regardless of whether this article is kept, expanded, or merged, the resulting article will never be mentioned, summarized, wikilinked, or footnoted in any of the Obama sub-articles.[5] But, if this article is kept, expanded, or merged then it may be appropriate to include some of the material that is already located at Alan_Keyes#Obama_citizenship_lawsuit. Incidentally, I still think this article ought to be deleted, even though some of the contrary arguments seem reasonable. I should also add that Donofrio is already mentioned at the article Natural-born citizen, which seems like plenty to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt - Natural-born citizen seems like a good place for it to me. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2008 (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.