Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Stumbo

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. There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, after much extended time for review. bd2412 T 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Stumbo

[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)

Fails WP:GNG (only ArsTechnica and Conde Nast really discuss the case, and it's only one one specific element of the case) and WP:CASES - non-notable lawsuit. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the notability issue, but this was a criminal prosecution, not a “lawsuit.” postdlf (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also no comment, but is it "Stumbo" or "Strumbo"? Chris857 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's Stumbo, and the spelling error has been corrected, TY. Magnoffiq (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SportingFlyer for pointing out my citation error: it's ars technica not Conde Nast. I don't see how it "fails" the WP:GNG at all. In fact, with three solid newspaper stories, and two interpretation articles from well-known trade mags including Wired (magazine), it deserves to stay. Are you perhaps unaware of the reputation of wired? It seems to be the magazine of record in the computer industry... so I inserted a sentence in the lede that begins with "The case is notable for", which alleviates the concern over WP:CASES. Can you re-review it now?

PS, I fixed the "orphan" problem: at last count, two wikis pointed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnoffiq (talk • contribs)

Keep: see above - no reply from proponent SportingFlyer to my comments is indicative of his/her consent to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnoffiq (talk • contribs)

That's not how Articles for Deletion works, if I were to consent to keeping this I would withdraw the nomination. The Wired article does not even mention the prosecution by name. It's clearly a non-notable crime. SportingFlyer T·C 06:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired article is mentioned in the ars technica article. The fact that the crime (or a facet of the crime) garnered US national attention in at least two significant publications makes it ipso-facto notable. Magnoffiq (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know how this run of the mill drug case is notable. There's no evidence it has any value as precedent. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, I don't think the status of "legal precedent" is a criterion for AfD. Or do I err? Please indicate here the reasons you think it is an AfD criterion. In any case, the text that follows has been added to the lede:

“

The case is notable for its use of an international production order, whereby the DEA obtained crucial links that tied the criminal to the transaction by way of the Canadian Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

”

Magnoffiq (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not totally obvious from the way that the article is written, but this article is significant because it was the first major case which made use of the Canadian Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. That's the claim to fame. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it appears Wikipedia is the only place where it's reported as the first, which would make it WP:OR. There are a couple sources saying the case used Canadian help, but they're brief and don't demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mentioned in the judgment? That wouldn't be original research. Bookscale (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the documents I've been able to find, I haven't seen the judgment, but I can't find anywhere that discusses the case in that sense. The "claim to fame" isn't mentioned anywhere, the crime wasn't notable (36 months probation?), none of the sources even significantly cover the case (but instead talk about some email-related technicalities.) I don't have any problem mentioning that in say an article on Hushmail, but nobody has actually shown sources that pass WP:SYNTH demonstrating the notability of this case, or this crime. SportingFlyer T·C 02:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the discussion above, a commentator asks "I don't think the status of "legal precedent" is a criterion for AfD. Or do I err? Please indicate here the reasons you think it is an AfD criterion.". Of course, "legal precedent" is not an AFD criterion but it is a dimension of "lasting effect" - see WP:LASTING. Candidly, this is a current event that fails WP:EVENT. A straw in the wind that this case has had no lasting effect is that all the sources in the page are within two months of the case. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Magnoffiq (meant Bearian).4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - umm... Magnoffiq has suggested keeping the article? Bookscale (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per May His Shadow Fall Upon You. Bookscale (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:24, 28 September 2019 (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.