Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berg v. Obama

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. kurykh 02:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg v. Obama

[edit]
Berg v. Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A pending case filed by (apparently) a conspiracy theorist. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything these days. I don't see what makes this lawsuit notable. 67.150.122.240 (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: Nomination was started by an unregistered editor. I have completed it on their behalf. No opinion on my part. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: — 67.150.122.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I don't feel my account is a 'single purpose account.' I've made some submissions and edits to Wikipedia before, but I have just never bothered to register before. Since this is the first time I've wanted to create an article since Wikipedia made the change that allows article creation only by registered users, I registered. I will continue to use this account to make Wikipedia edits in the future. I don't feel that the characterization of my account as an SPA is warranted. Zad68 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's warranted for the moment. Your week-old account has made no edits to any article except this article, the one you proposed shortly after starting this account. Not that it should change the merits of the argument one war or another, but describing you as an SPA for now is definitely warranted.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as when you say "Not that it should change the merits of the argument one war or another", you're saying the truth, then OK, it doesn't bother me. I guess I shouldn't expect everyone else here to be able to prognosticate what other edits I'm going to make with this account in the future. Zad68 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fact that you are an SPA is separate from the many good, strong reasons for immediate deletion (which are enumerated below). These strong reasons for immediate deletion would be just as strong if you were not an SPA but rather a longtime user with a varied track-record.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Many editors prefer to document all SPAs, in case we get a flood of 'keep' or 'delete' votes, and we notice all of them are SPAs. In that case, it would look like someone was gathering people to "vote" (meatpuppeting). That isn't the case here, but I didn't know when the AFD started, so I just documented it because the nom was SPA. It is just procedure in this particular AFD. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but notability isn't temporary. If it is covered by multiple reliable sources (and it is) then it is notable, per WP:NTEMP, regardless of the long term (the coverage is what makes it notable, not the result of the case). You are welcome to try another argument, but it passes wp:v, wp:n and wp:news pretty clearly since it is a court case that is covered independently. Also note, I found these sources in about 5 minutes, so I bet more can be found. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my point. Notability is not temporary and the notability of this case is temporary thereby failing WP:NTEMP. Not all legal cases are notable even if they are independently covered per not the news. This case in my view is really just the legal system being manipulated for political reasons. When the case fails to go to trial (most likely) or loses (and it will lose as it is a very weak legal arguement as Obama was born on US soil) then the case will cease to be memorable for itself but only as a part of Obama's 2008 bid for presidency. I rarely express my personal opinions in AFD debates but in this case I think to give this topic an article at all is undue weight. If this were a serious lawsuit than you can bet it would be making headline news and causing serious discussion internationally. As it is, several major media outlets have not even picked up the story. Bottom line is that I doubt this case will even go to trial, a fact that makes the notability unclear. FYI, I am not an Obama fan but I find this sort of political monkeybuisness entirely reprehensible.Nrswanson (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says "if it is ever notable, it is notable forever". The line " there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic" demonstrates that. Once it gets multiple coverage, it is notable and it doesn't have to prove that it will be covered ever again. THAT is the purpose of the policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there isn't an element of .. well.. question-begging involved in stating that if the case went to trial [the plaintiff]would lose because Obama was born on US soil, when an allegation included in the suit is that Obama was not born on US soil, but in Kenya, to persons who were neither US citizens nor eligible to be (The issue of Indonesian residence, etc., is another matter.)It implies that Obama's birth "on US soil," therefore his citizenship, is or would be presented as a self-evident fact and foregone conclusion. Of course, it may very well be just that, which would be fine with me. [Potentially-sarcastic remark conscientiously deleted here by signer.]--JWMcCalvin (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama was born in Hawaii not Kenya as evidenced by his birth certificate.Nrswanson (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was not. Obama's black grandma says she was in a hospital room, in KENYA, on the day of his birth. Angie Y. (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. If you wished to advance such a claim, you should cite your sources. But this debate is not about whether Obama is American, Kenyan, Indonesian or Martian; it's about whether this as-yet-unheard legal case is notable. In my opinion, it is not notable as distinct from the general welter of misinformation and vexatious claims surrounding this candidate. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP. This is a very important case involving the US Constitution that will more than likely cause Obama to lose the election to John McCain. Mr. Berg presents very powerful arguments, such as Obama's school registration forms. Angie Y. (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge; there are many suits filed, but not everything that gets a little bit of news time needs its own article. Possibly if it doesn't disappear down the toilet quickly, then perhaps it might get its own article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. On page 6 of the complaint there is mention of a discrepancy between the Italian Wikipeida and the English Wikipedia regarding the hospital in which he was born. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, exists only as a novelty. If we were to create articles for every lawsuit against every prominent political figure by every crackpot with a theory the place would be inundated with articles that would at best be frivolous and at worst be defamatory and libel. –– Lid(Talk) 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified Keep or Merge I agree that Wikipedia isn't the place for every allegation, assertion, contention or what-have-you that is made about a candidate or any political figure, but my first awareness of the issue was through a someone's comment, made yesterday in response to a news article, that 'Obama isn't a US citizen because he was born in Kenya,' etc. etc. After searching the Net for 'Obama not US citizen,'Berg v Obama; and reading various news articles and (mostly) conservative/right wing opinion pieces, blogs etc regarding the suit, I came to Wikipedia seeking a concise, even-handed and reasonably accurate NPOV summary of the matter. I must say the article is certainly concise . . . Seriously, though, I'm somewhat tempted to suggest that however the case is resolved and the election is decided, there might potentially be a rationale for a 'round-up' article or section regarding this and other such lawsuits--especially when brought by apparently prominent Democrats--and the most persistent rumors, for historical interest if nothing else. (I realize that Obama has an anti-rumor website; but I suppose that could be considered a possible source for such an article, not a substitute for it, should there be one.)--JWMcCalvin (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I'm sure the news can't help but make mention of this minor fact now... it will be forgotten so fast that I doubt we can call it notable in a week, never mind any time in the future. It's also not for us to decide upon the importance or the ramifications of the law suit, which appears to be the sole keep/"Interesting" argument. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per Nrswanson. (Not ignoring the debate about WP:NTEMP, but simply suggesting that this is, in fact, the correct course of action.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I understand that people don't like it. (hell, I don't like it) but it is real, it is sourced in multiple newspapers. NTEMP clearly says this article passes, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic. You guys are reading the policy wrong. It says there is no such thing as temporary notability. Once it is notable, it is notable forever. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, wikipedia is not the news. Just because something has been reported in multiple newspapers doesn't make it notable. In this case we have a ludricrous law suit filed that probably will never see the inside of a courtroom. It's getting news coverage today but once it gets thrown out it will cease to be notable. Per WP:Crystal this article really shouldn't exist. If the case does turn into something more substantial later (which I think is highly unlikely) then by all means the article could be created again.Nrswanson (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to labour the point, but wp:crystal can't apply as nothing in the article is about what "will" happen, and it is properly sourced. I am also confident that the case is bunk, but that isn't the standard, independent coverage by multiple reliable sources is. I wish I hadn't seen the AFD, honestly, but I can't pretend that I feel the article genuinely meets policy in a very clear way. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Those aren't reliable sources. The Kentucky Lake Times article is obviously a press release from Berg - it refers to 'our website obamacrimes.com'; a quick glance at the KLT home page reveals it to be a highly biased site, filled with unverified claims, politicised opinion, and crazed hyperbole. The NewsStar 'article' is a letter from a reader. The title of 'Right Side Politics Examiner' should be a clue as to that site's persuasions; but in case there was any doubt, the article itself is an editorial, re-posting a YouTube video from Berg. The Australia.to 'article' is an opinion from a syndicated blog, and the blogger claims that the case has received very little attention. (A Google News search shows that that, at least, is true; almost no news sites carry the story.) Your 'reliable sources' are neither news sources, nor especially reliable. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's sources consist of generally minor media; no national notability established. The fact someone files a lawsuit against a political figure is not notable - it happens all the time. No prejudice against recreation should this become notable. 23skidoo (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have researched this and it appears to me that this is non-notable according to Wikipedia standards. Perhaps it will be in the future once the long term notability of this has become clear. However, as it stands it appears to be nothing more than fringe news, and Wikipedia is not the news. Eatabullet (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a lawsuit in a U.S. Court regarding the eligibility of a particularly notable presidential candidate. I find it hard to believe that anyone could argue in good faith that it is non-notable, whatever one's personal opinions on Obama or about the veracity of the claims made in this case might be. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Forget I agreed. Angie Y. (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could sue him too, and that wouldn't be noteworthy either. PhGustaf (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a lawsuit in a U.S. Court regarding the eligibility of a particularly notable presidential candidate. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court. Berg is a licensed attorney. People need to know about Obama, whom we know NOTHING about. Angie Y. (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I could place a citation needed tag on a comment I would, "It will most likely go to the Supreme Court" being the offending section. Berg may be a licensed attorney but that is not prima facie evidence the case is valid. It's based on innuendo, paranoia, confirmation bias and conspiracy theories. This idea of this article being notable because of its topic "just who is Barack Obama" is, apart from as previously mentioned a case of WP:TRUTH, a blatant case of coatracking. –– Lid(Talk) 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angie, you still appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that assertions about Senator Obama are going to swing this deletion debate one way or the other. That's not the point. The point is that unheard court cases are not independently notable; Berg's filing of this claim is only of incidental relevance. John McCain, who was born in Panama, has been the subject of a very similar case. It gets one sentence of coverage here, which seems about right to me. In my opinion, coverage of Berg's case against Obama should be similar. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - This is just a case of a fringe nutball filing a lawsuit. It has had some play on conspiracy theorist websites, and been jokingly reported on by a small number of mainstream newspapers, and that's it. I could probably achieve the same thing by claiming in court that John McCain is literally a space alien. It certainly isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia, and in two weeks no one will even remember this. --GoodDamon 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>*Yes, nonsense sources. That's why I hate The Washington Times] because they're nonsense </scarcasm> 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection - GoodDamon posted that remark nearly an hour before you posted your link to the Washington Times. Mocking him for not predicting the future seems both uncivil and excessively demanding. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Times? Are you kidding me? We might as well be citing the Weekly World News. MissingNo (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the mainstream newspapers report on this, it turns it into notable nonsense. Many things that might not otherwise be notable become so when its about a major presidential candidate during the election. If the McCain has similar coverage, add it also. DGG (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - this is important and the case exsits which warrants it to be kept here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The press release for the case just came out on ObamaCrimes.com, listing all the admitted allegations against Obama. Angie Y. (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how that has any bearing. I can put out a press release about whatever I want. It doesn't make any bizarre claims about Obama I make more notable. And I've already told you once before, "obamacrimes.com" is practically the poster child for poor sourcing. Nothing from that site, ever, will make it into an article here. --GoodDamon 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Obama has been using a "the dog ate my homework" approach to disclosures ever since he started running for president, which was about the time he graduated from Harvard Law. He claims that he didn't keep his tax returns, even as his campaign demands and obtains 30 years of tax returns from Hillary Clinton. He refuses to release his legislative records from the state senate, even as his campaign demands and obtains hundreds of thousands of pages from Hillary's years as First Lady. He refuses to release any medical records except a terse, one-paragraph letter from his doctor, even as his campaign demands and obtains media review of thousands of pages of medical records from John McCain and from Hillary. He refuses to release his birth certificate, and there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that he may not be a U.S. citizen. Berg has made an interesting case, and it's worthy of a Wikipedia article. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a long manifesto of your personal assertions is not what a AfD debate is about. Please refrain and stick to WP:Notability. davumaya 18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete This is highly known, in-the-news material that should be covoered (especially per WP:NTEMP. Who would even consider deleting this article? It should be expaned, as it's a very public case, and will obviously have people seeking information on it...HERE. On the grounds of this being "in the news right now", that does not mean it will be notable if the case is thrown out. If something interesting happens with this case, then it would be more notable. Oh, and I can't sign in because I'm at work, but this is User:DigitalNinja, thanks, 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to be persuaded that this is 'highly known' or 'very public'. It's just an unheard lawsuit. And Wikipedia is not a news service, we shouldn't retain an article simply because someone might be looking for one. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the point on creating any article if it's not because someone might want information on the subject? Doesn't that seem like violating the very spirit of the encyclopedia? Also, my wording "in-the-news" was an attempt to illustrate notability, not the fact that it is, indeed, in the news. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between an encyclopaedia and a newspaper. This is the sort of item which gets into the 'Funny Old World' column of the London Metro, not Encyclopedia Britannica. I wasn't intending to criticise your choice of words, but simply to point out that the article is a reasonable subject of criticism under the heading of WP:NOTNEWS. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't think you were criticising my words, I was just frustrated because my original thoughts weren't put forth correctly due to my own wording! :) I suppose I'll change my keep reason as per WP:NTEMP. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete - There are not sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. A claim involving such a public figure would surely get significant mainstream press if it were worth knowing about. Otherwise it is just junk of a sort that would make the encyclopedia impossibly bulky if we were to include all of the world's clutter at that level. The highly partisan nature of this and its connection to fringe POV conspiracy theories makes it especially suspect. However, this is without prejudice to recreation (or withdrawing my delete opinion) if significant major coverage can be found. Also please do note the anti-Obama SPAs and accused sockpuppet(s?) among the !votes here. Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be good to note the pro-Obama and pro-Obama socks !votes as well :) 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, the media is in the bag for Obama (pro-Obama)? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing a verb there. I'm not sure your suggestion is relevant to this discussion, though. If it is, could you be a little clearer, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully we never have to do business together. You'd order a office chair and I'd send you a bag of charcoal. Perhaps my keyboard hates me? :) 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete Ask yourself this question: If the case is dismissed out of hand, will it warrant an entry? Of course not. If it is found that Obama is in fact a US citizen, would this case warrant an entry? Of course not. It it is allowed to continue and has an impact on the world (i.e. obama's citizenship is found to be fraudulen) then it would warrant an entry. But at the moment, it's just paperwork for a fringe conspiracy.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So, regardless of what course the case takes, it's a real lawsuit, against a real notable person, with real reliable sources...so, what was your argument? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is: this case may yet fizzle out entirely, so it's not notable. Simply mentioning a notable person does not make a document notable, because notability is not inherited. The case against McCain mentioned earlier was not independently notable, and nor is this, yet. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That actually makes sense. I'm changing my vote. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This lawsuit simply doesn't warrant a Wikipedia page, since the person who filed the suit has presented no real evidence to support his claims and under that circumstance, it's frivilous lawsuit. Thousands of people every year file frivilous lawsuits, do they also deserve their own page? No. There is no credible reason to keep this page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drphillips (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:NOTNEWS perhaps notable enough for a balanced mention on a 2008 campaign article --guyzero | talk 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to speedy --- it appears that all of the article sources are primary sources only. --guyzero | talk 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Added more out of political propaganda than notability. sixtynine • speak, I say • 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it will be possible to write a truely neutral article about this pending legal case on the basis of the limited coverage it has recieved as a news story. Guest9999 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (moved from above) The only reliable source (Washington Times) also says that Berg "has filed suits for clients against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, claiming they knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before they happened." Those lawsuits are also not worthy of their own articles. See WP:FRINGE. ~ priyanath talk 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone else. It's not notable, it's a lawsuit so frivolous that only the fringe right media covers it (FOX News ignores it!), and there's so many things wrong with these allegations, it's not even funny. —MicahBrwn (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think who's covering it is the issue here, and I certainly think it's unfair to say it's "frivolous": that isn't for Wikipedia to decide. The fact that the defendants motioned for dismissal and protection, were denied those motions, and then failed to follow the court order to present the documents by the date ordered (all of which can be confirmed by reading the actual case on justia)give this case credibility. The fact that it's outcome could decide the legality of an Obama presidency make it notable. It's as simple as that. —123fakestreet 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as per everyone else MissingNo (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, its just some right-wing conspiracy against Senator Obama. Lehoiberri (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed to delete I orignally said to keep, and I still think that it barely passes notability, however, the article seems to be a battleground for a soapbox of people whose interests are not Wikipedia, and instead want to run Obama into the ground. Maybe later, but at this time, I don't see how we can keep it and keep it neutral without constant reversions of links to website that are just anti-obama and not wp:links or wp:rs material. PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PhGustaf 66.152.166.101 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything else said about fringe conspiracy theories, etc. McWomble (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified Keep or Mergesee following... I don't know if my vote counts any more or less as the article creator. I sat on my hands for a few days to see what comments came up. If the case goes nowhere, it should probably be merged into the main election article as a curious footnote. If it goes somewhere (high appellate courts) and causes enough questions to get national attention on the electoral process, it should probably be kept. I vote it be kept and updated at least through the Nov 4 2008 election and/or its resolution. We just need to sit on it so that comments of a particular political bias, or trying to argue the case itself, be kept out. Zad68 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Prolonging this deletion discussion until the presidential election would be an obvious POV variation of the normal deletion process. It would be POV, in my opinion, on the grounds that the purpose of the case is to discredit one of the leading candidates in that election. If the election takes place, and Obama loses, the case is redundant. The timing of the election should have no bearing on our decision here. Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the next official decision about the progress of the case itself is due? A judge somewhere may yet save us all some trouble. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This case was thrown out by the judge: http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html I agree now that it's a novelty case and not notable. Zad68 (talk) (pardon me for not logging in to make this comment)
  • The problem is that berg has filed a civil suit, which the US system is extremely lenient about allowing. It will be dismissed before going to trial, but it will probably take a while (more than two weeks) for all the judicial I's to get dotted. And, once dismissed, i think berg has some right of appeal -- allowing he or anyone else to claim the suit is still live. According to [|this] -- the Federal Election Commission joined obama and the DNC yesterday in asking for the lawsuit to be summarily dismissed. The case law on this favors dismissal -- similar suits against Bush and McCain were dismissed because the plaintifs couldn't demonstrate specific personal harm, the tack currently being pursued by the FEC, DNC and Obama. At any rate... is the wikipedia system being gamed? Absolutely. Is it annoying? You bet. Is it relevant to anything but the world of wikipedia? No. Will any encyclopedia, online or hard copy, have an entry on this in 5 years? Nope. While i would like to see this "article" deleted post-haste, if it takes a few more weeks because of wikipedia's rules, so be it.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no indication that this case is notable or significant through coverage.. It seems that this person is in the habit of filing civil suits against politicians. The notability of Obama or the situation doesn't make this case automatically notable. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD discussion typically lasts for around five days, there are exceptions such as discussions which are closed per WP:SNOW or when the nominator withdraws their nomination. Guest9999 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources have been found and added. Furthermore, Philip J. Berg, Esquire is not simply a run-of-the-mill "conspiracy theorist," but a former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General who is licensed to practice in a number of courts up to and including the United States Supreme Court. Whether or not Berg's claims are correct, the case is legitimate and notable because of its connection to Senator Obama.— 129.32.40.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. Philip Berg was interviewed on both the Steve Malzberg Show and The Savage Nation today, two nationally syndicated radio programs, with regard to this case. I think adds a bit to its notability. —123fakestreet 21:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth rebutting every piece of anti-Obama hyperbole in this discussion? To my mind, this case is no different to the very similar one brought against McCain, and no more notable. Party politics don't really enter into it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Savage may be an insane rightwing nutjob, but he's an insane rightwing nutjob with an audience. Several million a night, in fact. What's the sound of 5 million rightwing nutjobs simultaneously telling everyone in earshot Obama is from Kenya? Notability. With regards to the case brought against McCain, that was dismissed immediately (basically on the grounds that there was no way to prove the plaintiff had been injured by McCain and thus could not sue.) Berg, however, filed for an injunction and orders of admittance, the latter of which was granted. The motions of dismissal and staying of disovery made by Obama and the DNC have been denied, and Obama and the DNC have failed to meet the deadline set for discovery and answers to the order of admittance: it is a very, very real possibility that the judge may rule in Berg's favor. —123fakestreet —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. I would have said merge to Philip J. Berg but it's just a redirect. If someone actually creates the article on Berg before this AFD closes than I will change my vote. As it is, "move" really isn't a fair and viable option for a closing administrator. They would then have to go to the trouble of researching the person and creating an article. If this is something that you all want to see happen I suggest you create the article on Philip J. Berg and then suggest a merger here. Otherwise a delete is really the best solution.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it affects anyone's decision, it appears the judge rejected the lawsuit yesterday: [2] --barneca (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if berg does appeal (who knows if he will or he won't) that still would not make this notable. All we would have is a coatrack for a fringe theory, by a serial filer of lawsuits in support of fringe theories.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is very little unbiased information about this case/controversy on the internet. This subject is small in comparison to most of the issues facing us, granted, but people who hear about the allegations will be curious and deserve a place to come to find factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.242.105 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 70.195 etc... is an spa.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "factual information" is there to know? A crackpot sued Barack Obama, claiming he wasn't born in the United States, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, including a birth certificate and an announcement of the birth in the local newspaper. The case was thrown out. There, that's the extent of information about it. It's a curiosity, not an encyclopedia entry. --GoodDamon 23:47, 25 October 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.
  1. ^ "Press Release from Philip Berg - Seeking the "Truth of 9/11"". Scoop Independent News. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
  2. ^ Duffy, Shannon P. "Lawyer Slapped With $10K in Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions'". Retrieved 2008-10-25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Berg_v._Obama&oldid=1117953746"