Talk:Ziglar v. Abbasi

A prod was applied to this article. I wonder whether the lawyer who applied this tag failed to notice that this case was going to be reviewed by the SCOTUS, or if they don't consider SCOTUS cases that involve human rights to be noteworthy?

I removed the tag. Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expanding the article and adding secondary sources, which were completely lacking at the time I prodded it. The subject matter of a case doesn't determine whether it is notable, though obviously its subject will impact whether it was covered in secondary sources sufficiently to achieve notability and merit an article.  And any case in which SCOTUS hands down a full bench opinion is presumptively notable (or rather the bench opinion is presumptively notable; the case may only be notable in connection with that opinion, so the article will be framed around the Court's opinion).
 * That said, I still have concerns about this article. First, it asserts that SCOTUS agreed to review this case.  However, the two sources cited for that proposition (both NY Times articles that appear to be two editions of the same story) state that SCOTUS agreed to review another case, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which it decided in May of this year.  Turkmen v. Ashcroft is mentioned in those Times articles only as "another lawsuit" that will be impacted by the Court's decision in Iqbal.  So Turkmen never become a SCOTUS case, at least as far as the presented sources indicate.  Unless that can be otherwise verified, that statement should be removed from the article.
 * Second, nothing is said about what the District Court or the Second Circuit actually ruled in this case. I don't know if the complaint was dismissed by the District Court and the Second Circuit summarily affirmed, which would seriously undercut whether the case should be considered notable, or if the lawsuit is still ongoing.  Postdlf (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the SCOTUS. I'll fix that.


 * Let me, in turn, share one of my concerns. My understanding of our deletion policies is that nominations for deletion are supposed to be based on how remarkable the topic is -- not on the current state of the article.  It seemed to me that the text of your prod didn't really comply with the policies.  It has always seemed to me that good faith contributors considering nominating an article that has triggered their concern should consider themselves under an obligation to do a cursory web search first.  If that web search suggests that the topic may be remarkable, and worthy of coverage then our deletion policies do not recommend deletion.  In cases like this don't our deletion policies recommend other first steps, like raising those concerns on the talk page?  Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not how I read Proposed deletion or Deletion policy. It's more accurate to say that articles are deleted or kept based on how remarked upon the topic is, i.e., has it been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.  My concern was that the article did not show any sign that the lawsuit was notable; it only cited to a self-published source and had no information beyond the allegations of the complaint.  In that form, it did not meet criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, and articles when they are first posted should be in compliance with all such criteria (articles on other subjects in this state would even be eligible for speedy deletion under CSD A7).
 * But I wasn't certain that it wasn't a notable topic, only that the article made no showing of this; hence a deletion proposal rather than a deletion nomination at AFD. I often see your complaint raised in response to any number of tags placed upon on article, that the person tagging should take the time to fix the problem themselves.  But not everyone who recognizes a problem has the time (or is obligated) to do that, and the role of Wikipedia contributor is one of editor (and critic) as well as writer.  People in AFDs also often respond that the article could be cleaned up or that sources could be found, to which the best response is "show me."  In this instance, you responded to the PROD tag within three days by attempting to correct the problems; by adding secondary sources showing that there was at least some news coverage of this case, and by expanding the content.  So it seems to have worked as it should have.  The article still has quite a ways to go, but I appreciate your efforts to improve it.  Postdlf (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

MCD vs MDC
Is the abbreviation MCD or MDC. Both are used in the article, with more MCD. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)) ............................................... This case was decided three years ago. The lower court's "judgment [was] reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1358/ So whatever happened when the lower court took the matter up again on remand? It seems to me that the Supreme Court's decision, by itself, is important, but that the further history of the case is also important and should be discussed in the article.184.180.87.188 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)