Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skilling v. United States

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. It's snowing. Mkativerata (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skilling v. United States[edit]

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

Non-notable court decision. Was de-proded on the assertion that it is a "United States Supreme Court decision". There is no consensus that all USSC decisions are presumed notable, so I am bringing this to AfD for the community to decide. Onthegogo (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In case someone want some words in bold, snowball keep. T. Canens (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – T. Canens provided plenty of sources above. –MuZemike 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the sources listed by T. Canens were published on June 24, 2010. Coverage is WP:ONEEVENT, and evidence of on-going coverage is required to meet notability requirements. Onthegogo (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how exactly a Supreme Court case is a person? Insert Citizens United joke here Because what you linked to is a section titled "People notable for only one event". NW (Talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything they rule on affects the whole country. Therefore it is continually "on-going coverage" if you will until they reverse their ruling or a new law affects it. CTJF83 20:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue any US Supreme Court case is notable. CTJF83 20:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any US Supreme Court case is notable, then all supreme court cases of all 200 countries are notable. Either that or there is US-bias. I could be convinced to keep this but the above rationale about all cases leads me to be a delete. Forgotpassword321 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And who might you be?? Your account started editing today, with !votes in several AfDs, indicating that you are not a new user. If, as your username suggests, you have an older account to which you forgot the password, then you are required by WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to provide a link to the prior account(s) at your user page (with the exception of situations like WP:CLEANSTART). Otherwise what you are doing here is basically a form of sockpuppetry. As to your argument, it does not hold water for several reasons. First, regardless of whether or not one thinks that all U.S. Supreme Court cases are notable by default, in this case there is plenty of coverage by independent reliable sources, some listed in the article, some given by other AfD participants, and lots more easily found with a few google searches. Second, while I personally do not think that all Supreme Court cases of all countries are automatically notable, if we are dealing with a country that has 100+ law journals and a massive national media following every move that the Supreme Court of that country makes, it is a safe bet that all cases decided by the Supreme Court of that country is notable. That's is the case for the U.S. Supreme Court but not the case for the Supreme Courts of many small countries. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't all supreme court cases of all countries be considered notable, on the grounds that sources will certainly exist? We have plenty of space for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it is US-centric. Per Nsk92, BlankVerse Forgotpassword321 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically you are a sockpuppet who also can't read. The standard of inclusion for a Wikipedia article is if the subject has significant coverage by independent reliable sources, not whether it is related to a particular country, religion, nationality, sport or whatever. If such coverage is available, we don't delete the article, regardless of how many other articles there are related to the country/religion/sport etc. If you think there are too few articles dealing with non-U.S. topics, you are welcome to create such articles. But if you want to play Savonarola and engage in a little book burning, you should leave Wikipedia and do that somewhere else. Nsk92 (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if you persist in calling me a sockpuppet, you are a bully. "If such coverage is available..." you write. Wrong. Look at the Amanda Knox article. Hundreds of articles have been written about her over several years in at least 3 countries, US, UK, Italy, yet it is not an article. Amanda Knox has more reasons to be an article than an obscure court case. For this reason strong delete. Do not blame me, blame Nsk92 for taunting me. Forgotpassword321 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call you a sockpuppet because even after being told about the requirement of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to provide a link to your prior account(s) at your new account user page, you have not done so, nor responded in any other way to the prior accounts issue. It is obvious that you are not a new user. As to Amanda Knox, I am not familiar with the details of whatever happened with that article (was there ever one?), but there are thousands of notable topics for which Wikipedia does not have articles yet. That's not a satisfactory reason to start deleting articles about notable subjects that WP does have - that would be totally idiotic. As to you "strong delete", you can blame me all you want, and make it a super strong delete with a diamond collar, there is no way that this article will get deleted. So screaming about it is not going to help you. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per all above. The nominator's rationale is strongly misleading. I did not deprod it on the assertion that it is a "United States Supreme Court decision", I said "It's a United States Supreme Court decision. It is almost guarenteed [sic] to have third party sources somewhere". And that is entirely true. Besides the numerous newspaper articles T. Canens mentions, the case is the subject of an article in the Vanderbilt Law Review, an article in the Harvard Law Review and likely several other journals as well. NW (Talk) 20:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I would think it's snowing here.—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The supreme court is so closely followed by legions of legal publications, so I would argue that its not unreasonable to assume it's decisions are notable per WP:GNG. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Lots of coverage by independent published sources, including those already listed in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per overwhelming consensus and past outcomes. Almost all United States Supreme Court cases are notable, and the past precedent is that they come close to per se notability. English Wikipedia has an entire WikiProject to deliberate such cases. In this particular case, not only due multiple reliable sources go to show it is generally notable, but it is the subject of a notable play. This nomination must be in bad faith or to make some point about Wikipedia's bias. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having seen the random nature of the nominator's other deletion nominations I would put this down to incompetence and/or ignorance rather than bad faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. AGF Bearian.--Chaser (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But to keep making crappy deletion nominations even after seeing how many are closed as snow or speedy keep... That rather challenges the presumption of good faith. postdlf (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm of the view that all court cases from all courts, bearing the imprimatur of officiality, are notable. Shoplifter (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep; every modern SCOTUS opinion, at least, is most certainly the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, from news to academic journals to textbooks. This is particularly true given that SCOTUS has discretion to hear cases, so it only chooses those that pose a novel issue of law or are the subject of split decisions by lower courts. It appears that the nom has a history of starting meritless AFDs based on his talk page and contribution history, and I also find it hard to believe that he followed WP:BEFORE in this particular instance; given who it involved, this case was far from obscure even to mainstream/lay media. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One comment, though it's not at issue here: SCOTUS hands down approximately 80 opinions each term (the current term's list is here). Opinions are fully written explanations of the Court's reasoning, and may be accompanied by individual justices' concurrences or dissents. These are the cases the Court decides to have the parties fully brief and hear oral argument in, so they are selected for their legal impact and importance; they are not just routine cases that happen to come before the Court. Beyond that, SCOTUS hands down mere orders in thousands of cases every term; these are summary disposals of cases, grants or denials of review (certiorari), etc., just one-line orders declaring the result (see example here). The cases in which those orders are issued are not normally notable. But the Court's opinions, such as the one nominated here, always are. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The honest services fraud provision of this statute is key to some white collar and public corruption prosecutions. This case is the first and only time the Supreme Court ruled on this provision. It is notable of its own importance, independent of whatever popular press coverage there is of this decision.--Chaser (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Nominator seems to be unfamiliar with the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2011 (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.