Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Watson


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Watson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tentative delete: Article is about a court judgement. Pardon me if I nominated this incorrectly. Please review.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. (1) First I will address a possible source of confusion: The citation of this case given in our article appears to be incorrect. 445 US 573, 100 S Ct 1371,63 L Ed 2d 639 (1980) appears to be Payton v New York, which concerned warrantless arrests in the home (whereas this article is about warrantless arrests in public), not US v Watson. 423 US 573 also seems to refer to a different case. I think this article is really about United States v Watson 423 US 411, 96 S Ct 820, 46 L Ed 2d 598 (1976), because the facts match up exactly, the citation is close enough, and the quote at the end of the article is what was said about US v Watson in the judgment given in Payton v New York. (2) The nominator has advanced no valid rationale for deletion. In fact, I am not sure if the nominator is advancing any rationale for deletion (unless he is suggesting that we exclude all court cases from the encyclopedia). Results in GBooks and elsewhere confirm that United States v Watson (unsurprisingly) satisfies WP:GNG easily and by a wide margin. Moreover, as a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, it satisfies both criteria of WP:CASES and is, therefore, notable three times over. I suggest the nominator carefully read WP:BEFORE, if he has not done so already. James500 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Concur with James500. In any case, we already have an article on Payton v. New York but not one on United States v. Watson, and as a Supreme Court case it is inherently notable. Probably the author wrote this article using a snippet mentioned in Payton, as that is where the quote in our article comes from. Altamel (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I just fixed the mis-numbering and added a bunch of the basic stub and template structure. Clearly still needs a lot of work, but I'm sure some law student will roll along and help out. —  Noah  01:11, 10 February 2015 (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.