Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 178


 * 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 all. While the arguments for deleting the content are persuasive, so too are the arguments that these lists should be kept and/or moved to Wikisource. Although there is no firm consensus as to what exactly should be done with the content, there seems to be a consensus that it should not be deleted, and so I am closing the discussion as a keep for the time being. Any transwikiing of content can be handled through normal processes. -- jonny - m t  02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 178

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

This is the first of a series of articles that are lists of court cases. By WP:NOT, this seems to be a mirror of information found here. Most of the articles are only redlinks too. justinfr (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages for same reasons as above:

Hello,

I have gotten notice that the pages referring to the Federal Reporter, Second Series that OpenJurist is adding have been nominated for deletion. These information on these pages do not exist on Wikipedia and are of the same style as the US Supreme Court Case lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases

I would argue that these cases add value to Wikipedia. They are cases that provide incite into the laws of the United States just as USSC cases do. OpenJurist has been instructed that members of Wikipedia have been wanting to add Federal Reporter cases to Wikipedia for some time. We are fulfilling that mission.

Furthermore, as to the cases existing on other sources, that is also true US Supreme Court Cases that exist on Findlaw as well as on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the fact that many of these cases are redlined only goes to the fact that there is a lot of information that needs to be added to Wikipedia, not to the fact that it is not valuable information.

(I was not sure where to respond, so I have done so here and the discussion page.)

Openjurist (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there a way to make this information more encyclopedic? I agree that supreme court cases are notable and many are deserving of their own articles. It's just this format I find unhelpful (i.e., it seems unlikely that anybody will search for, for example, "List of opinions from the Federal Reporter" rather than the case by name). justinfr (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is just a massive series of redlinks, contra to WP policy at WP:NOT. The information is readily available elsewhere. There is already a Federal Reporter article which is more than enough to do the job. andy (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--

Hello andy,

I noticed that on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series,_volume_178

You mentioned that:

"Delete - this is just a massive series of redlinks, contra to WP policy at WP:NOT. The information is readily available elsewhere. There is already a Federal Reporter article which is more than enough to do the job. andy (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"

However if you visit any of the US Supreme Court Opinion pages they are also a massive collection of Red links until someone writes articles for them.

Here are some of the USSC pages I chose at random: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_200

Furthermore, I have discussed this concept with MZMcBride and this work that I am contributing to Wikipedia has been on her to do list:

"It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Openjurist&redirect=no

I have access to the resources to create these pages and so I decided to do it.

They would remain redlinks until people know that they are here and have an opportunity to add more information on them, just like the USSC cases.

Please consider what I have written. We are trying to add value to the community by giving people access to these important US Appeals Court Cases.

Openjurist (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--- Additionally...

The page you refer to as already having this information "readily available elsewhere":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reporter

Even states:

"The Federal Reporter, including its supplementary material, is also available on CD-ROM compilations, and on West's online legal database, Westlaw. Because individual court cases are identified by case citations that consist of printed page and volume numbers, the electronic text of the opinions incorporates the page numbers of the printed volumes with "star pagination" formatting—the numbers are boldfaced within brackets and with asterisks prepended (i.e., [*4]) to stand out from the rest of the text.

Though West has copyright over its original headnotes and keynotes, the opinions themselves are public domain and accordingly may be found in other sources, chiefly Lexis, Westlaw's competitor. Lexis also copies the star paginated Federal Reporter numbering in their text of the opinions to allow for proper citation, a practice that was the subject of an unsuccessful copyright lawsuit by West against the parent company of Lexis.[4]"

We are providing this information to the public online - not on a CD-ROM or through pay access to Westlaw or Lexis. We are working toward open access to case law. And we are hoping that Wikipedia would like to play a part in this open access.

Sincerely,

Openjurist (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - reevaluate in 6 months I am joining Openjurist in this project. It is not just him. I am quite excited about this. --mboverload @  01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

-- By the way - we have added the page that gives access to all of the pages *just like for the USSC cases*:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases

Sincerely,

Openjurist (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

*Delete all "Delicious"? "New information"? It's nothing more than a bracketed table of contents from a 1949 volume of the Federal Reporter that's been sitting in law libraries for decades. No offense intended to Openjurist or Mboverload, but the two of you have bitten off more than you can chew. I voted to delete the Supreme Court project as well, for the same reasons. Not surprisingly, that attempt to reserve an article for each decision ever rendered by the United States Supreme Court has resulted in a few articles on cases that people are interested in, and lots of red-links for cases about which an article will probably never be written. It's easy to take a table of contents and put double brackets on each case for future articles, but you'll find that you don't have the time to do, pardon the pun, justice to the project. It's easy to slap one of these up, but I'll bet a $200 contribution to the Wikimedia foundation that both of you will give up on the project before the end of the year, and then you'll leave behind the mess of something started but never to be finished. Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Delicious new information. I'd like to see where this goes. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. On some of the users talk pages, it's been suggested this information be moved to Wikisource. I think that's a great solution. They're just not encyclopedia articles. justinfr (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource definitely sounds like the best approach, that's exactly what Wikisource is for. --Stormie (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The lists are clearly in line with the lists in the List of United States Supreme Court cases which were saved from deletion multiple times. Mansford says that there are redlinks for which articles will never be written but acknowledges that many article have been created as a result of the lists. He then pessimistically predicts that you will give up on the list before it's complete. If you don't finish the list I will so don't worry about it. Although I think the cases themselves would be a valuable reference on wikisource, I think there's a place for them here on wikipedia as well. Some of these cases are really long and need a summary to be readable by the average person.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please.... "If you don't finish the list I will so don't worry about it"? There are 400 entries just in volume 178 alone.  And when you get done writing those 400 articles, you'll write 400 articles for the cases in volume 179?  Then volume 180, 181, etc?  You might as well promise to write articles about what happened for each day in the year 1900, starting with "January 1, 1900" and then pledge to do 365 articles apiece for for 1901, 1902, 1903, etc.  Kids, don't make promises that no person could possibly keep.  Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add that Cdogsimmons mass produced similar lists of U.S. Supreme Court cases in March 2007, and more than a year later, anyone can see the real story about how much progress has been made by clicking on any one of the entries in List of United States Supreme Court cases.  There's a forum called "Articles for Creation" that you should go through when people have a big idea for a big project.  This, however, is disruptive.  Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mandsford, when I say "If you don't finish the list I will" I mean I will finish the LIST, not create each of the articles. You're right. To create each individual article would be too large a project for any one person, but it would be a perfect project for Wikipedia. The List of Supreme Court case articles has been a success thus far, allowing for easy creation of notable articles in the proper citation format. Are there articles for each link? No. It's a long-term project. That doesn't mean those cases don't deserve articles. A good synopsis of why the list was saved can be found here. How is this disruptive? Because it can't be completed immediately? Wikipedia would never have succeeded if that was a prerequisite. Oh, and from now on Mandsford, please keep your pejorative comments (Kids) to yourself.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I hate to admit it, Cdog, but you've convinced me. I'm changing my "vote" as described belo. Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep. Perhaps, ultimately, this may end up being trans-wiki'd over to Wikisource, but I applaud Openjurist for his goal of providing open & free access to case law.  However, I know this situation is being discussed on an administrative level, so let's all just take a deep breath, sit back, and see where it goes.  --Eastlaw (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikisource would love these. They appear to have been created by a bot, so perhaps the creation bot can be slightly tweaked, and then the upload to Wikisource can commence.  If not, I will work on an Wikipedia->Wikisource migration script to import them and adjust them as required to meet the Wikisource naming conventions.  I've commented at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and reconsider after at least six months. There is no doubt that Wikisource would welcome this material, but it is also a work in progress.  While maintaining the text of the decisions is clearly a Wikisource task, some of the cases will probably merit encyclopedic consideration.  Just because the list has a lot of red links is not a sufficient excuse for deletion; this is certainly a long-term project that needs a chance to find its way.  That can't be done if it always has to ward off visions that are too narrowly focused. Eclecticology (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource. These are a valuable resource and should be available online, but not on Wikipedia, as they represent an indiscriminate collection of information.  I'm a strong supporter of the U.S. Supreme Court case lists because SCOTUS opinions are necessarily notable, being the final word on important issues of federal and constitutional law within the United States, and being the result of the Supreme Court's discretionary selection of which cases to hear.  This is not true of decisions by the United States courts of appeals (which is, for the most part, all the Federal Reporter includes), because litigation in federal courts is not per se notable and appeals are not uncommon.  Nor are the appellate opinions designated for publication (and hence covered in the Federal Reporter) uncommon, nor necessarily indicative of national or constitutional importance or new precedent, nor are they binding outside of that court of appeal's circuit.  So there is certainly no reason to expect, or even to permit, an article for all or even most U.S. COA decisions.   This means that these lists cannot function to organize and aid in the creation of articles in the manner that the SCOTUS case lists can.  Postdlf (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great piece of contrived bafflegab! Notability has no objective standards whatsoever.  How do these COA cases compare in notability to something like the biographical article Ri Kum-Suk?  Is it that hard to say which in the long run will be more useful?  Yet I would not support deletion of a sportsperson's article.  Appeals are often used as precedent, even if only within one circuit, and sometimes long after the date of the decision.  You are probably right to believe that it will be a long time before many of these links will lead to real articles, but we are only talking about lists, and some of them may remain full of red links for years.  That's fine.  It only shows how big our collective future tasks will be. Eclecticology (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having these, but Postdlf is very right that most of these cases will not be cases that will merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, some surely will, so I propose going in two directions with this: one, transwiki the lists to Wikisource, and two (since transwikiing alone will not delete them here) move the lists from article space to project space (maybe as subpages under WikiProject Law, so that interested parties can look up the cases and cross out or delete the ones that lack encyclopedic merit, but also catch the ones that clearly belong in an encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all After Cdog explained what this is all about, I hate to admit that I was wrong. I'm actually persuaded that these articles are fine.  I had to ask myself a basic question-- WHY should I, or anyone else, get upset over what amounts to whether there is placement of brackets around each case name?  Or more to the point, whether it's in color or not?  Taking the first item on volume 178, does it really matter whether it's BLACK (Griggs v. United States) or RED (Griggs v. United States)?  As with this and the Supreme Court case lists, the fact that one could create an article from any one of the redlinks doesn't mean that there's a project to try to write an article about each and every case.  It just means that if someone does want to write about the import of a particular decision, they can do so in, as Cdog explained, a consistent fashion.  I realize, now, that there's no valid reason to erase all these lists, even if most of the cases will (I believe) never have an article written about them.  I can say that I will lose no sleep-- and neither should anyone else-- over the aesthetics of whether the volume 178 article is "red and blue" or "black and white".  Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. These are fundamentally a directory of cases; something that Wikipedia explicitly is WP:NOT so even though good and usefull in and of themselves they should be housed elsewhere.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, or transwiki, anyway don't keep it here. We don't need a list of hundreds of court cases. Note that these span only 2 years and in The USA, if these are worthy keeping, the the whole 200 volumes and those who followed since 1950 should be here too, and also similar ones from all over the world. It is simply too much, too detail, to keep. - Nabla (talk) 00:50, 19 August 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.