Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shular v. 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. The creator has admitted to the apology of not adding sources, the total consensus has been "Keep", and there are adequate sources to uphold the article's notability. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Shular v. United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is completely unsourced and lacks any verifiable information about it other than a few third party blogs that fail Wp:RS. No evidence of notability could be found even after conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - My apologies - I got distracted and forgot to fill out the citations after I created the article. The article is still in a barebones state but I have included additional sources that should hopefully pass muster. Omanlured (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Something's wrong with your searches. —Cryptic 17:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - the issue is not "does the subject exist?" it is "is the subject notable?" Nome of those sources are evident of notability. Michepman (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then my apologies. Your searches are fine; something's wrong with your concept of notability.  All of these address the topic directly and in detail; show evidence of editorial integrity; are secondary; and are independent. —Cryptic 18:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources presented by Cryptic. Most Supreme Court cases are notable and this is no exception. buidhe 18:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cryptic. In its current state, the article would surely meet with even the most hard-shelled deletionist's approval.  But even the article had remained unimproved since the nom, this would still not be an appropriate use of the deletion process. There is simply no way that a present-day decision from the US Supreme Court would fail to garner enough coverage to pass the GNG with flying colors. Thus, even for those who subscribe to the widespread-on-AFD but inaccurate belief that the GNG creates a free-standing basis for deletion, there was never going to be such a basis for deletion here. So absent some sort of hoax, this was always just going to be a cleanup issue. And even when nominated, the article had ample sourcing to show that it was not a hoax. -- Visviva (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - A single blog website and a primary source link are hardly "ample". Even in its current sources the only WP:RS are websitez that regurgitate and/or house primary source texts. Turning primary sources into article content is WP:SYNTH and Original Research. The only non-blog, non-OR submissions presented are articles that mention incidential details but lack the depth needed to verify the claims being made. Given that the article contains BLP material (eg the full name, personally identifying information, and a perhaps needlessly detailed criminal history of an otherwise non-notable private individual), it is impportant IMHO to be stringent in applying Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reliable sourcings. Michepman (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * SCOTUSblog is a Peabody-award winning journalistic outfit, and it is run by Tom Goldstein, a Harvard law professor who specialized in Supreme Court litigation. I think that it should qualify as a reliable source. Omanlured (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And WP:RSN agrees. Also: in what possible world are those primary sources? —Cryptic 14:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For one, those threads are fairly out of date and only mention the blog tangentially. They would be acarcely enough to establish a local consensus as to notability, let alone a sitewide one. For two, several of the other sources are really just links to the legal case in question and are being used as "sources" for the editor's own personal interpretation. The editor needs to find RELIABLE, SECONDARY sources and cannot rely on WP:LINKSPAM to paper over the thinness. Michepman (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep; Clearly a notable subject. You'd be hard-pressed to find any U.S. Supreme Court case that's not notable, and this is not one of them. TJRC (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, notability is not inherited. While many SCOTUS cases are notable, not all are - as you can see, not every SCOTUS caae has an article now. the only sources provided this far are ones that namecheck the ruling but provide very little direct and indepth coverage. Michepman (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed notability by inheritance. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cryptic - Coverage of legal topics in easy-to-understand language is important. We shouldn't be trying to delete Supreme Court cases that have enough references to be verified, as this one does, nor trying to argue that Supreme Court cases are not notable. By the time they've got to that level, they're usually important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Gazamp (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep- SCOTUS opinions are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Supreme court cases are notable. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Bloomberg News and SCOTUSblog are reliable sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.