Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White


 * 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) '''-- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers, ] Ri l ey   ''' 05:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Burlington Northern &
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to be a landmark case in any way. Therefore I believe it does not pass the "lasting effect" criteria of WP:EVENT. 1292simon (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an intriguing thought that Supreme Court cases may have no lasting effect. This article calls the case a "landmark decision" and I can see hosts of references continuing to the current year, some giving substantial discussion of the effects of the decision. The case overwhelmingly meets the notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Thincat does a great job finding sources above. These articles discuss this case as fairly important (it "set the standard for holding an employer liable for sexual harassment" according to one of the linked law reviews). Furthermore, almost all Supreme Court cases should meet WP:EVENT. According to that guideline, an event that has a "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" is "very likely to be notable". Considering that almost all SCOTUS cases receive secondary coverage in a range of sources (newspapers to law reviews), I think the bar is almost always met for these articles. For this case, that is no different, as Thincat aptly demonstrates above. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. Thanks for the sources, I agree that clearly the case is notable. 1292simon (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.