Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Camacho


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

United States v. Camacho

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no presumption of notability for US appeals court cases, nor is there an SNG for them to help guide our assessment. Therefore we must rely on GNG to determine whether this case is notable enough to require a standalone article.

I can't find any indication that this is an especially notable case. I've checked GScholar, GBooks, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, HeinOnline (via Google since it requires login to search), Questia, and basically found no substantial discussion of this case. The hits are muddied by two other cases, an 11th circuit case from 2001 also called United States v Camacho and a 6th circuit case from 2010 called United States v. Camacho-Arellano. Even adding +2004 to the search didn't turn up anything more substantial.

Given the lack of later references to the case and/or critical commentary about it, I don't think this meets our standard for encyclopedic notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Also checked WP:NEVENTS to make sure. William2001(talk) 19:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is an appeals case, I suggest changing the name to reflect exactly that circuit and/or year. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've noticed you making a significant number of comments on AfD discussions within the last hour, and it seems like you may be going a bit fast and not properly reading the nominations. As I specifically called out in my nomination, appeals court cases are not inherently considered notable, so the simple fact of being an appeals case is not in itself a reason to keep. The name of the article has nothing to do about whether or not it ought to be kept as a topic. Can I gently suggest slowing down and familiarizing yourself with our policies and practices, perhaps making some edits to articles, before continuing to speed-vote on other nominations? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a 250 word stub that checks out on open jurist and is written in neutral tone. There's no advertising, no promotion, no links to someone's website.  Obviously it's of importance to someone.  If it went on and on then I'd say that you're making an issue more notable than it is.  But it's only 250 works, which is smaller than this discussion, it is 100% factual, and written in a neutral tone.  So what is the point of removing it?  It makes our encyclopedia better.  And yes I move fast, if you drink some coffee you might move faster too.  Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that we are not an indiscriminate collection of all possible information. We rely on independent secondary sources for information, and if there are none (and I'm reasonably confident that there aren't), then the subject isn't notable and we have no business maintaining an article about it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I find three scholarly mentions of the case, one in Thomas K. Clancy, "2008 Fourth Amendment Symposium-The Fourth Amendment at the International Border", 78 Mississipi Law Journal (2008-2009), another in Yule Kim, Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment (2010), p. 16, and another in "Investigations and Police Practices: Warrantless Searches and Seizures", 40 Annual Review of Criminal Procedure 44 (2011). All of these mentions are fairly brief. The case has also been cited as a precedent in a dozen other court opinions. bd2412  T 03:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY if and only if all the sources found by are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I would say that the sources I found demonstrate notability. Each is a passing mention, and these three, collectively, are the only mentions that I could find for the case. Perhaps a better solution would be to merge this into a broader article on the application of the Fourth Amendment to border searches. bd2412  T 23:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A merge to Border search exception might be suitable? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment that the redirect recommendation by PMCspades above might be smart, but I will try and add some references to the page before we determine one way or the other. Looks notable enough for a mention elsewhere, even if on the brink for its own location. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the references to the page, giving it at least enough oompf for placement on a related topic with a useful redirect, which I endorse maintaining. My failure to secure more coverage makes me unsure it passes WP:GNG, if the mentions are relatively short like mentioned above. OhioShmyo (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2019 (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.