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. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. DuBay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A case in US military criminal law. Sounds like this content, if sourced, could be useful in some related article, but this substub has been unsourced and without a claim to notability since 2007. Sandstein 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Thanks for the improvements establishing notability. Sandstein 09:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case established dubay hearings, which appear to be fairly common. See [Miami Herald], McClatchy], [Washington Times] (in the past year). multiple court cases such as United States v. Lee (1982) were somewhat involved with DuBay hearings (see here). In The Military Law Review, see UNITED STATES V. DUBAY AND THE EVOLUTION OF MILITARY LAW: THE FOURTH GEORGE S. PRUGH LECTURE IN MILITARY LEGAL HISTORY. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good, but unless this is mentioned in the article, the reader still can't verify any of this nor determine why this case is significant. Isn't this something better covered in, say, Courts-martial in the United States? Sandstein 08:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded some. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The law review article cited by Eddie891 substantiates this case's significance and notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergeinto Courts-martial in the United States; we don't need two-line articles. Keep the redirect Keep. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaarmyvet: it is no longer a "two sentence article." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the case is significant enough that it has become synonymous with a legal procedure or doctrine, it probably merits its own article. This article now contains more detailed information about the case's ramifications than would be appropriate for a more general article like Courts-martial in the United States. --LegalSkeptic (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can understand why it was nommed, given how it appeared at that time; it was completely unsourced other than its citation, and the only indicium of notability was the unsupported claim that the case was the basis for DuBay hearings. But kudos to Eddie891 for stepping up and improving it (his "expanded some" comment above is overly modest) into its current form, including outstanding sourcing. TJRC (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The case itself is clearly notable. The article improvement and expansion by Eddie891 removes any reason to merge.Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2018 (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.