Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Strong

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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Strong

[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)

I am not entirely sure that this article meets our notability guidelines. The coverage in reliable sources seems sparse at best. I do not count the likes of salon.com among reputable sources an encyclopedia should be based upon. I struggle to find anything in national news, and what I do find hardly seems like in-depth coverage. Any input is appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Maine. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the author of this article and I believe that the case is notable. I've gone over the sources and gone over which ones support WP:GNG. I admit that Salon as a source isn't the best but it isn't doing the heavy lifting in establishing notability and at least as it stands now there is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. WP:SALON.COM.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
United States v. Strong	~~WP:PRIMARY, content is judges ruling on this case~~ an opinion by a judge on the case s not independent of the case theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]	WP:PRIMARY	WP:PRIMARY	✘ No
Portland Press Herald	Local news paper WP:NEWSORG	Source appears to be reliable	Article goes in depth about the case	✔ Yes
ABA Journal	Published by the American Bar Association	Author is a lawyer and was a former new researcher	Article is on the cases appeal	✔ Yes
Portland Press Herald	Local newspaper WP:RSEDITORIAL	Source appears to be reliable, the article is an editorial but it conveys facts about the case	Article is only about the case	✘ No
Salon	Author and publication do not have ties to the people in this case	~ There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. WP:SALON.COM	Article covers only the case	~ Partial
Sun-News	Republished from a news agency WP:NEWSORG	Short description of the case and includes facts	~ Part of a few short strange stories	~ Partial
FindLaw	Author and site both do not appear to be connected to the case	~ This one is kind of hard, this source is a blog but it's part of a news-ish organization. So I think it could honestly be either WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:USERGENERATED	Article is only about the case and is more than a passing mention	~ Partial
FindLaw	Author and site both do not appear to be connected to the case	~ This one is kind of hard, this source is a blog but it's part of a news-ish organization. So I think it could honestly be either WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:USERGENERATED	Article is only about the case and is more than a passing mention	~ Partial
New York Daily News	Newspaper that does not appear to be connected to the case	Considered to be generally reliable as per WP:RSP	Article is primarily about this case and is more than a passing mention	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Points to consider. Looks as if the sources satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have this as an article. The article content seems written in the style of a news report and may fall foul of Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NEWSPAPER. The article topic needs context to have encyclopedic merit. The only analysis of the case seems to be in blogs not in the newspaper articles presented (The Portland Herald is paywalled so unable to judge, therefore open to contradiction on this point).

Although the article is not a biography, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to publicise Strong's bowel problems, so on grounds of privacy, I'm wondering if anything in WP:BLP1E or such like applies here or whether because he's been convicted any privacy consideration is anulled. Rupples (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Rupples, I went though and cleaned the article up and removed some of the content that wasn't really needed to move the article along. I reviewed other cases that cited this case and added the legal principles that cited this case (Constructive notice and De novo review). As for the privacy concerns that was something I did take into account. The only reason I felt publishing this article was acceptable was because the article covers the appeal case. I figured if you got sentenced for pooping in public it shouldn't be an article here even if it had significant coverage, these are real people and we should give them a bit of grace. But going forward with a multiple year legal appeal in federal court and being cited in other cases to support legal principles made it ok. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're 'cleaning the article up':) Seriously, what might help here is a sub-heading on media reaction. I seem to recall in the sources, mention made of a 57-page judgment and criticism of the depth of this as a waste of taxpayers' money. Commentary on the case from uninvolved parties, as opposed to mere reporting, would likely overcome a 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper' argument. Rupples (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mmm that's a good idea, I'll try and knock that out after dinner thanks @Rupples! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes significant commentary on the case would change my vote from delete to keep. Need some sort of proper analysis of the legal principles, not just the weird facts. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

⚫Delete - Not Notable PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My goodness. In all my years as a lawyer, nothing has quite disgusted me as much as the facts of this article. Just putting it out there. Now, moving on to why I am !voting delete. I do not like to have court cases removed, and so I make this with a heavy heart. However ultimately this is an encyclopaedia. When we consider which court cases to write articles on, they need to meet WP:GNG. I am not really sure this article meets that standard. Yes, there is some coverage of the case. However we need to look into what is reported here. The question of law is not examined in the coverage, only the weird and disgusting facts. This case was not reported on because it had some legal merit or a serious question of law to be determined. It got attention because it is unique and yuck (ie newsworthy). Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I consider the coverage of this only to be related to news. It is not a significant case that has attracted (so far as I can tell) widespread attention from legal journals or been cited elsewhere by higher courts. It is a run of the mill case that got a few clicks because some may find it funny. Almost everything within the article is focused on the Facts of the case, and that to me is not notable. Analysis of the legal reasoning behind the decision is required for me to consider a case notable. I have omitted to create many articles for cases I've come across before due to this reason. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis. The article currently focuses too much on a few attention-getting descriptions and quotes, rather than discussing the legal arguments underpinning the case...so it leaves readers with the question, "What's the point?" The few sources that do cover the case actually do mention legal reasoning on both sides (if very superficially), so I would strongly recommend going back and adding those points in. (What I have been struggling with all along though is whether this is really sufficient reason to !delete the article. For this reason, I am abstaining from !voting.) One further recommendation is to rename the article to something like United States v. Ronald J. Strong as there certainly seem to be quite a few other (more prominent) cases referred to as United States v. Strong...so I doubt the current article title will be stable long term. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle yeah, if it stays we should discuss a rename for sure. This is one AFD I actually regret reviewing. That case is putrid. Eurgh. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there is some coverage, mainly because of the sh*t factor, this is hardly a significant legal case: it does not answer any difficult aspects of law and I cannot find where it has been cited as precedent. The only thing of interest here is the feces. Lamona (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The case meets WP:GNG. I see a variety of content objections here, but fundamentally the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Suriname0 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Suriname0, do you mind pointing to this coverage? Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi User:Surtsicna, I looked at the reliable sources in the table created by User:Dr_vulpes. Suriname0 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have been wondering if there are WP:BLP considerations here, even though the article is not a biography and even though the conviction was upheld, and even though Wikipedia is not censored. Even if the article is kept, does it really need to contain all this vivid detail? I would point out that the ABA Journal news article manages to summarize the key points of the case without overly WP:GRATUITOUS detail. I understand this issue is strictly speaking not a matter for AfD, yet I can't help feeling that it is the real reason there is such a strong objection to this article, so I thought it was worth raising here. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've tightened up the article a bit to remove the extra unneeded material. Also I created a section that includes legal analysis. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. (1) Fewer than 100 cases are decided by SCOTUS annually, so many Circuit cases are still notable. (2) Pardon the pun, but the crap has been cleaned up and a fairly clean start of an article remains. (3) Court cases are usually notable because they are precedents, but that's not the only reason. (4) This is a classic candidate for both WP:ODD and an April 1, 2024 article of the day. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately, the "Legal Analysis" section doesn't help. Yes, the Straker case is mentioned in the court proceedings but the transcript is a primary source. The comparison between the two cases needs to be commented on in a secondary reliable, independent source to help with notability.

Newspapers.com appears not to have page B6 of The Portland Herald of July 26, 2013 in its inventory — it may have helped here.

Not convinced by Bearian's reasoning. (edit: ~~— seems tenuous.~~) Rupples (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to read the July 26, 2013 article in the Portland Press Herald I was able to find it on their website and it goes into more detail. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to come to a conclusion so remain neutral, however the article is 'improved' from when it was first put up in this AfD. Rupples (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While it is quite difficult to find coverage of the subject, the analysis done by Dr vulpes did indicate that some of the sources are legitimate enough to let this article pass WP:GNG. Policy-wise, there does not seem to be a reason for removal. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:10, 8 May 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.