Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California v. Byers


 * 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The result was  withdrawn by nominator - non-admin closure. nneonneo talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

California v. Byers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Also nominating:
 * - textdump from or similar
 * Withdrawn, concerns addressed. nneonneo talk 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Textdump from or similar site. While this isn't a copyvio (since such cases are in the public domain), this is "just another legal case" since it doesn't assert the notability of the case. nneonneo talk 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment both articles need work but since they are U.S. Supreme Court cases they will most likely have significant independent coverage. Adderley v. Florida is appears to be an important decision regarding free speech zones. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you are correct; Adderley v. Florida looks like it does have importance. That article can probably be saved from the axe; however, I'm still trying to find what makes California v. Byers notable (aside from it being a US supreme court case). nneonneo talk 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Motion to Strike They might not be copyvios. But they are not articles, either. Text dumps from Findlaw should not go here. Eauhomme (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all US supreme court cases are notable, and are good bases for articles. Both of these are in any case significant either as precedent or historically. Needs a good deal of work, of course, but thats not reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki both to Wikisource. We should have articles on these cases, but they should be articles and not the original documents. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete source material. It's not formatted and WikiSource can easily obtain the text elsewhere. WillOakland (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not Bailii. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice to future creation as a real article. SCOTUS cases are inherently notable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Both to Wikisource.-- danntm T C 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adderley v. Florida but delete California v. Byers per above. Adderley v. Florida is no longer just a text dump and is properly formatted with references. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination of Adderley v. Florida: article has been properly sourced and the textdump removed, so the original concerns no longer hold true. nneonneo talk 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the headnotes but keep and re-write the article: I would argue that Supreme Court cases are presumptively notable.  This particular case, if I understand correctly, holds that hit and run statutes are constitutional (and, among other things, cites to a case holding that a state law requiring the filing of income tax returns does not violate the right against self-incrimination, and to other cases holding that various police investigative procedures do not violate the right against self-incrimination).  However, I'm not sure whether the headnote falls under the same copyright exception as the opinion?  Basically the text of the decision of the court itself is in the public domain, but anything, and I mean anything,  added by a commercial publisher is copyrighted.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to dismiss without prejudice The issue is now moot. I think the best thing to do in the future would be to turn a copied opinion into a stub as a placeholder rather than delete the article all together as long as it is apparent that the article would be otherwise notable if written. Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination. Thank you very much for summarizing and clarifying the material. nneonneo talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   —Hiding T 20:40, 18 May 2008 (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.