Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certificate of disposition

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 keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 22:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate of disposition

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

This appears to be primarily a how to guide (and Wikipedia is not meant for such things), and focused on a document that exists in a single jurisdiction that does not appear to rise to sufficient notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AfD is not meant to debate poor articles that can be fixed with the normal editing process. This a form used in 13 city courts and the five boroughs' Supreme Courts, in a city of 8 million people that is so great, you have to say it twice. :-) Seriously folks, let me fix it up a bit before it is blown up. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:HASREFS and WP:HASPOT. --Edcolins (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I checked google books and google scholar and found several uses of the "certificate of disposition" which define the term. See [1][2][3] Is this adequate notability for a Wikipedia article? Or should this be more appropriate for wiktionary?--Nowa (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you identified show that there is some material out there to improve this article (beyond having a wiktionary entry, perhaps). See also In re Pedro Aricio Pichardo-Sufren (mentioned in the third reference you indicated) which discusses such a certificate of disposition:

"The only document offered into the record to prove the respondent’s deportability under section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act was a “Certificate of Disposition,” a document issued by the criminal court indicating that the respondent was charged, pled guilty to, and was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree."

The California Penal Code also uses this term [4], which seems to have the same meaning as in NY. --Edcolins (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tend to err on the "keep" side, but I thought I would raise the issue.--Nowa (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage, enough for a nice quality improvement project potential on this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2013 (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.