Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State v. Leidholm


 * 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. No agreement for deletion on any of these articles, however some "Keep" opinions are stronger than others. No prejudice against individually nominating some of the weaker ones if someone wants to take a closer look. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

State v. Leidholm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Also nominating- Dawkins v. State People v. Gleghorn People v. La Voie Stephenson v. State Hannah v. Commonwealth People v. Anderson (1968)

Not notable state supreme court or appeals court decisions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all - These are literally "textbook cases", they are cases that receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as legal case textbooks and scholastic legal works, in addition to being widely referenced in decisions of courts in other cases, which are also reliable secondary sources. These cases meet WP:Notability because they have WP:RS significant secondary source coverage in major mainstream and classic law school case textbooks that have been used nationally for decades, such as those used at Harvard University or Stanford University. Independently, they meet WP:NOTE by have significant secondary source coverage in cases in other jurisdictions, which point to them as being seminal or illustrative in establishing common law on their topics. They also have secondary source coverage in mainstream academic articles.


 * State v. Leidholm has its own chapter in the 7th edition of the standard first year law criminal law casebook, used at Stanford University and all over the US. There are the numerous scholarly articles about it, e.g., The Meaning of Equality for Battered Woman Who Kill Men in Self-Defense, in Harvard Women's Law Journal. Here are some more. The case is notable in that it is widely referred to as being illustrative of major common law principals, in other decisions in other jurisdictions, not just in the state in which the decision was issued. Similarly for the other cases. MBUSHIstory (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * These articles are sufficiently similar that the mass-nomination makes some sense (they all cite the same textbook), but some more individual consideration in the nomination would be helpful. Anyway, as to each:
 * State v. Leidholm - keep - per MBUSHIstory, in particular the reference to this case having its own chapter, which is unusual, and also due to the sheer number of sources cited in the article (four) that write about this case.
 * Dawkins v. State weak keep as it deals with legal doctrine that is unfortunately timely and I suspect responding to recent events.
 * People v. Gleghorn neutral at this time. keep based on additional refs.--Chaser (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * People v. La Voie tentative keep as this appears to be a potentially landmark case on this issue in that state.
 * Stephenson v. State keep as it affirms the conviction and decades-long sentence of a KKK leader, which event led to the demise of the Klan. In addition, this case deals with unusual facts in the felony murder context, and probably doctrinal developments in that area as well.
 * Hannah v. Commonwealth keep as "often cited".
 * People v. Anderson (1968) weak keep as this case appears to clarify an important part of homicide law in a large jurisdiction.--Chaser (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I went back and added content that indicates why the cases are notable, as well as adding secondary sources in which the cases received significant coverage, using a Google Scholar search. When the nomination was first made, some of these articles may have had no source, nor any indication as to why the cases were notable. This may satisfy the nominator as to their notability. If not, there are still more secondary sources that can be found in a Google Scholar search. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:54, 8 October 2016 (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.