Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of landmark court decisions in the 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. Discussion centered around the question of whether the inclusion criteria for this list article were (or could be) clearly defined. While approaching the question in different ways, there was a rough consensus that there was, or could be such a bar (e.g., perhaps via third-party sources using the term, perhaps by the previous criteria mentioned by Uncle G.)

As an aside on the underlying policy requirements, our stand-alone list policies do not demand complete objectivity in the concept behind a list. WP:LSC says it best, "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources.", if there's any problem with the objectivity of the previously-used criteria, the criteria BD2412 proposes would be firmly within policy. As a result, should there be any remaining disagreement over which of these criteria should be used, that can be resolved through normal discussion on the article Talk page. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

List of landmark court decisions in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:OR. As pointed out on talk, there is no criterion for what constitutes being "landmark". —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename? The word "landmark" is vague and we also have List of United States Supreme Court cases which lists all court cases with WP articles in chronological order, but it's still useful to classify court cases by subject area (which this article does but List of United States Supreme Court cases doesn't do). I'd suggest renaming to something like List of court decisions in the United States by subject or List of court decisions in the United States by area of law.--Colapeninsula (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a navigational list; its purpose is to help end-users find content. There are good reasons why we need to supply such lists, and it's a step backwards to go about deleting them.  Find a way to reorganise or repurpose the list.— S Marshall  T/C 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see the WP:OR after having looked at the list, nor the talk page. I can't see a single case on the list that hasn't been widely and fairly universally noted as a landmark case, other than the Obamacare case, which simply hasn't been out long enough to be in that status yet.  List content differences can be addressed on the talk page, as has been the practice on this list.   GregJackP   Boomer!   12:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Indiscriminate and arbitrary criteria. We have List of United States Supreme Court cases, and it isn't really proper for us to synthesize that into something like our own Greatest Hits album. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When came up for deletion, the criterion, which is defined by Black's not Wikipedia editors, was explained.  You should read it.  Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, it wouldn't hurt to have the criteria spelled out in the lede. bd2412  T 15:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually was spelled out in the lead, until and no-one noticed for three and a half years.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk)
 * Keep. "Landmark case" is the terminology used and there are specific cases that are widely recognized as such. Debate over the inclusion of individual cases should be solved with discussion, not with deletion of the entire article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH is an issue here, because every case listed can be sourced to multiple third party reliable sources noting its status as a landmark case. bd2412  T 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As mentioned above it is a navigational list whose purpose it is to help end-users find content. For this reason I vote against deleting the page. As mentioned by user Roscelese debate over the inclusion of individual cases should be solved with discussion and not with deletion of the entire article. --P3Y229 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - This seems like a frivolous proposal. I actually was thinking myself that there might be a slight bias towards more recent cases but the Robert's Court has also handed down quite a few landmark opinions so it might just reflect reality. In any case this article is important. Most of these cases (especially the older ones) are not disputed as landmarks and a proper understanding of the Constitution is nearly impossible without a working knowledge of these cases. Deleting this article would be a huge mistake and unfair to people wanting to know this information. This is a long-established article that should not even be considered for deletion in my opinion. It isn't a "greatest hits" compilation because these cases aren't stand-alone cases. They build upon one another in a very meaningful way. The suggestion that it is- forgive my frankness- appears to show a lack of understanding of the common law system in the United States. (Fshoutofdawater (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)).


 * Keep - Any notion that the List of landmark court decisions in the United States is akin to an "[i]ndiscriminate" Wikipedia-User generated "Greatest Hits album" created by way of "arbitrary criteria" demonstrates an impressive naiveté of the legal profession at-large. It also ignores similar Wikipedia lists, such as the List of experiments which is described as "a list of historically important scientific experiments."  A landmark court decision is similarly considered to be one which is historically important.  Surely, if it is permissible to "synthesize" a List of experiments based on historical importance, it is permissible to do the same in the field of United States court decisions.  Discussion among the legal profession over whether a court's decision is a "landmark" one or not is exactly parallel to discussion among the scientific profession over whether a scientific experiment is an "historic" one or not: There exists, in both fields, a general consensus over what events are of the greatest importance, as well as disagreements within each field over such matters.  I strongly urge fellow users to vote against deletion.  -Dcjackman (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The one objection seems to be that no one can conclusively say what is 'landmark' or not. Yet, that just isn't the case. Major decisions in different areas of the law can be said to be important, if used as precedent for future cases or if they made 'new law' on big issues. The article should remain, as is. Lord Roem (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe rename. Just because the criteria for what constitutes a "landmark" case is somewhat arbitrary doesn't mean that it's not a useful list to have. Kellogg has spent a lot of money litigating that Pringles are not actually potato chips, but they still get mentioned as such in the Potato chips article. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 00:17, 10 July 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.