Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal rules on judgment execution and stays

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. Sr 13 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal rules on judgment execution and stays

Just a copypasted excerpt from Florida statutes. Nothing to save, nothing to clean up. Hemlock Martinis 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know what this is, but it looks like it could be a copyright violation. --Metropolitan90 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a work of the US Federal Government, so it's in the public ___domain and therefore not a copyright violation. Deranged bulbasaur 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, it's from Florida law. The blanket public ___domain only applies to the federal government, not the state governments. --Hemlock Martinis 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for the excerpts that are apparently from state law, I'm almost certain those are PD as well. Works of a state government are not necessarily PD by default, but actual laws are. It would be pretty ridiculous if one couldn't even quote from the laws governing oneself. Deranged bulbasaur 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Truth is, it's such a mish-mash that I can hardly tell what it's quoting from. I guess that's a good reason to Delete. Deranged bulbasaur 07:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that the article seems to contain commentary and case citations which might have been compiled by a commercial publisher. It's not just a bare excerpt from a law. --Metropolitan90 08:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreadable, not an encyclopedia article. Copy-paste work without context, and if it's from the Florida statute the title "federal rules" is misleading. Topic looks worthy enough of mention in some death penalty article, but this article is not useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is talking about a writ of execution of a financial judgment, not capital punishment. --Metropolitan90 08:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see... need to read it better. (But I tried...) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. obscurities of civil judgement law useful only to attorneys registered in Florida. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really need more substance at writ of execution, and the rules that provide for stays of execution. But these excerpts of source material wouldn't even make much sense to merge there; they read like notes taken by someone drafting a brief. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an attorney, I could see keeping this information if it was the actual statute, along with some citations to law review articles. To answer a point made by a previous poster, a statute cannot be copyrighted. However, this appears to be some notes--very bad notes--written by a law student. There is no reason to keep it. It would be better to delete and recreate the article with better information. CraigMonroe 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely look like a copyvio--JForget 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Public laws are not copyrighted, since they are written to be followed by everybody. Second, FRCP stands for FEDERAL Rules of Civil Procedure, not FLORIDA Rules of Civil Procedure. The latter is cited as "Fla.R.Civ.P." Like Criag, however, I think that this would need to be re-created. Author may well be an attorney, but if so, needs to learn how to italicize (emphasis added).Mandsford 02:06, 13 July 2007 (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.