Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats


 * 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. It seems that not only South Dakota, but also Wikipedia really likes cats. Consensus is that coverage is sufficient, even if if occured for seemingly silly reasons.  Sandstein  19:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable state supreme court decision. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep As per WP:GNG, there are sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to cover reliability.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep They may be from the funny name but there are sources covering it. Honestly surprised there were two dissents. I removed the useless listicle source and irrelevant picture of a cat though...people know what they look like... 20:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It may have received coverage for a, uhh, funny reason -- but it did receive coverage, and I wouldn't override that by deleting simply because we think that it's not an important enough case. The media thought it was important enough to cover, and even if that does not necessarily speak well of the coverage of legal issues in this country... that's basically what we use for notability here. TheOtherBob 20:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly non-notable case; it received substantial coverage the week it was issued, but almost no significant coverage since then. Mostly it’s just included as one of multiple examples of funny names of in rem court cases. See:
 * Here (The Daily Caller) ("As a result, civil forfeiture cases often have truly bizarre titles, such as South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins and United States v. Articles Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls.”)
 * Here (NPR) ("A typical civil forfeiture case comes with a bizarre name like U.S. v. $124,700 or South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats...")
 * Here (ACLU of Nebraska) ("Typical civil forfeiture cases involve money, but the government has used this system to seize a wide range of unusual property such as: South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats; United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins; United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls")
 * Here (Technician Online...??) ("Unlike criminal forfeiture, under which police can seize property from those convicted of a crime, civil forfeiture does not require you be convicted or even charged. Instead, a civil case is brought against the property itself, giving way to case names such as State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix and South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats.")
 * That’s all I found, beyond contemporaneous news coverage of the ruling itself and one Below the Law blog post already linked in the article. None of that counts as substantial coverage of the case. There’s no academic analysis of it. It’s literally just mentioned periodically as an example of a funny case name, which might someday belong on a "list of notably named in rem cases" or something, but the case itself lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage and is completely non-notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually if you use the alternate name of "State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats", you find it has been cited multiple times as legal precedent so I think that counts as academic analysis by it constantly being used by the court to make judgments.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or weak keep it doesn't really matter how a subject crosses the notability line as long as they do it, a large part of this case’s notability *does* appear to be its unique name but there is solid reporting and commentary on the case. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the examples I mentioned above, none represent "solid reporting" or solid commentary on the case, the case is just mentioned within the story as one of multiple cases with funny names. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage" means "more than a trivial mention"; these are all trivial mentions about how in rem cases can have funny names, in articles that are actually focused on legal civil forfeiture process (and they don't discuss or analyze this case for that part). This case didn't have a WP:LASTING effect; all the notable coverage of it is from around the day it was issued. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per The CofE - God Save the Queen! Appears to have sufficient 3rd party notable coverage to meet GNG (even if only just). Bookscale (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even if it's only notable for its amusing name, if it has coverage it's notable, IMO. Poydoo (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep due to sufficient notability. However, we really need to establish some notability guidelines for legal cases. BD2412  T 03:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree .  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Give me a few days, I'll draft something up. BD2412  T 11:40, 29 January 2020 (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.