Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibb County School District vs. Wickman

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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibb County School District vs. Wickman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hoax article that is word-for-word identical in places with the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe article mentioned in body. Discussed on the WikiProject Law talk page and was recommended to submit for AfD. Kazamzam (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Alabama. Kazamzam (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence anywhere (Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, Newspapers.com, Internet Archive, etc.) that any such case existed, and (as discussed at WT:LAW) it appears that the creator just copy-pasted the then-extant version of another article and changed the details. Recent state supreme court cases involving the First Amendment don't just disappear: at minimum they'd be available through Justia, case.law, or one of the many other online caselaw repositories. There's just nothing here, so I'm confident it's a hoax. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for G3, seems like a full AfD is unnecessary? Literally only 6 G hits for "bibb county"+"wickman"+"school prayer", all wiki mirrors. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it might be deleted by an admin who's forgotten that G3 only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism. I.e., that if one has to go and look it up, it can't be that blatant? Ooh! SN54129 16:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire, just to clarify, as I forgot to actually leave a !vote... I don't actually disagree that this should be speedied, as it's clearly such transparent bullshit that it needs to be expunged exterminated eradicated extinguished eliminated and erased already. But it should be an WP:IAR speedy—it's literally the kind of thing IAR was made for—and not one that is only ambiguously defensible. Cheers, SN54129 17:03, 9 September 2023 (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.