Wikipedia talk:Notability (law)

proposed revision of the lead

Here is a proposed revision of the lead to model it after WP:MUSIC:

This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to law, including cases, judges, and courts. The guideline is centred around common law jurisdictions, and may not be wholly adaptable to articles on civil law.

Failure to satisfy these guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. While failure to indicate notability does render the article vulnerable to speedy deletion under criterion A7, this may be avoided by a mere claim to significance, requiring a full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion to evaluate (per WP:V and N)) whether the claim is true.

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Works fine for me! Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

awesome + a proposed relaxation of the guideline for cases

You've done stellar work here, Ironholds. Thanks for undertaking this. We can start applying this and we'll let it evolve to fit our experience. I don't want to create an (edit conflict), so go ahead and incorporate the suitable features of my proposed lead at your leisure.

Here's an idea I wanted some feedback on. When I wonder, "Why do we have WP:N in the first place?", the general answer has something to do with the fact that we're building an encyclopedia. But if I understand correctly, what we're really saying is that WP:N is an attempt to ensure that an article will remain in conformity with WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV over the course of its future existence. And if someone creates an article that fails WP:N, then ipso facto it's not of general interest, and by implication it's probably of personal interest to the creator, and is a likely candidate to violate WP:NPOV in the future. Thus we destroy articles that are vanity, articles on new startup companies, articles on the coffee shop down the street -- when we say they fail WP:N, what we really mean is that they pose a hazard to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.

Is this correct?

I am asking this in light of our experience at WP:Articles for deletion/HMA v Ritchie and Morren. This was a particularly interesting case because we simply could not fathom why the article was created. Since I'm a law student, I assume the article was created because it appeared in someone's casebook, and s/he was creating the article to augment the curriculum.

For the sake of argument, let's say we could verify that this is true. In this case, I would see no reason to destroy such an article, right? Shoehorning it into WP:N would be a headache, but you have to admit that if HMA v Ritchie and Morren poses no organic threat to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, and if someone says "But we're learning it in school!" there's really no reason to spite them that.

Where am I going with this. Ummmm, all of this could point to either of two conclusions.

1) As long as a court case does not pose a foreseeable threat to WP:NPOV, it should not be subject to the full rigors of WP:N. (You may perceive a slippery slope towards degrading WP:N, but I think that hazard is cabined because the underlying principle is to prevent violations of WP:NPOV. WP:MUSIC could never get away with such a statement, since bands and albums have a much larger interest in exploiting WP for self-promotion than do people interested in legal cases, judges, and courts.)

2) More realistically, we might say that if a case is mentioned in a casebook, it meets notability. The requirement is that someone must demonstrate that the case is mentioned in a casebook. At this point, you might protest that the Notability of such cases is not immediately transparent. But I would reply that 1) per the logic above, such cases are harmless (not a hazard to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV) and 2) the decision of the casebook editor to include the case is a proxy for notability -- i.e., he/she knows something we don't know.

What say you? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 16:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision

Actually, I could have said this much less abstractly:

“

A case is notable if it is mentioned in a casebook, because it could impact how thousands of people understand that area of law.

”

As for the other stuff, one could argue that WP:N is just a way of applying WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BIO for the purposes of AfD. On the other hand, even a "notable" rock band has an incentive to violate WP:NPOV at its respective article, yet our explanation for including these articles is that "there exists verifiable, non-OR, NPOV testimony as to their notability." So that suggests that notability is something independent.

Still, I am interested by this stuff. Is WP:N the best place to discuss it, or is there somewhere else? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how you view things in casebooks, but I'd say simply a "mention" isn't enough, because it isn't enough information to form an article. If the case is discussed in some detail then fine, it passes WP:N. If the case is in a casebook because it set a piece of binding precedent or had a historical impact, fine. Either way it passes the requirements of the guideline as it stands, and your suggestion is moot. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, the word "mention" is problematic. Speaking for U.S. casebooks (and UK ones too?), the table of contents lists all of the "principal cases". Without knowing anything else about a case, I'd say that makes it notable. However, each of the principal cases will then be followed by a bunch of "notes." For example, you might see the following (pulled out of my ass):

“

Note 3: Hostile corporate takeovers of military contractors. Applying the holding of the principal case, would the outcome be different if the object of the hostile corporate takeover were a military contractor during a time of war? For a discussion, see the trial court case of X v. Y.

”

In my hypothetical, X v. Y is a trial court case, not a precedent. Also, it gets no more than a sentence in the casebook. However, the editor of the casebook seems to think that if you were interested in this issue, you'd be wise to consult that case. My feeling is that, in these conditions, the case meets WP:N -- based on the implied judgment of the editor.

You're right that my suggestion is "moot" because it is just a proxy for the standards you have already mentioned, but it's going to be hard for us to demonstrate those standards. I think we could just save everyone a headache if we accepted those cases. I really don't see any downside to it. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Follow up: I agree that a simple mention "isn't enough information to form an article." However, my proposal is that the mention is used to establish notability (e.g. questionable cases could establish their notability in a section at the bottom, ==Use in pedagogy== or something), whereas the content of the article can be fleshed out simply by paraphrasing the content of the case: "First, Judge Jones inquired whether the war was a just war ..." etc. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• the mention can't really be used to establish notability - it can be used to save an article from speedy deletion, but it isn't enough to survive an AfD. If there is a mention in a casebook that mention needs to be backed up by coverage per WP:N or evidence that the case itself set some kind of precedent/was historically significant. if there are only two lines in a casebook which establishes the significance of a case, fine, but simply mentioning it is not enough. Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me

• I'm new to AfD & WP:N discussions so I'm learning this stuff for the first time. I guess I'm hung up on the difference between "notability" and "establishing notability." If a case is in a casebook, then thousands of people look at it, and that is a factor that would contribute to its being notable, but I acknowledge that that's not sufficient. In addition, it probably got there because the case is notable for other reasons, so the mention could help establish notability -- however, that's an argument based on authority, and is no different than saying "A law professor thought it was notable," to which the rebuttal might be, "But what's notable about the case? and then we'd have to make arguments about the case itself. So, I agree that "simply mentioning" is not enough. The mention must suggest the notability of the case itself.
• The X v. Y case I suggested above helps frame these issues. In my hypothetical, it's not a precedent. Suppose also that the parties were not notable, and that the case wasn't covered in the mainstream news. We need a mechanism for including that case if it articulates a legal opinion that is worth knowing about. I think my hypothetical casebook language meets that standard.
• So here's a revised addition:

“

A case is also notable if a reliable scholarly authority (such as a law professor, law review, casebook etc.) has suggested that the text of the case may be useful for further understanding a legal principal.

”

• On these grounds, we were right to delete HMA v Ritchie and Morren, a case that wasn't mentioned anywhere, and that was non-precedential. However, suppose a law professor had said in some article,

“

One of my favorite examples of legal principle XYZ was applied in the case of Ritchie and Morren. (The case itself was pretty humdrum, but Ritche and Morren had previously been convicted of sodomizing a goat, and so I use this case to illustrate how ridiculous Scottish people are.) As articulated in that case, principle XYZ means that ...

”

• What would we do then? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think that a case like that would be notable, although we do things differently in terms of legal education between the US and UK. I understand your education is based on the idea that by reading and looking at the case text itself you'll get a firm understanding of the principles of jurisprudence behind it. Something should not be included as a case simply because it is an example of a type of decision - the first decision that set precedent that such a decision is acceptable should instead be included. If you want to include an example in something, that's fine. Lets say for the purpose of this discussion that there is the case of X v Y. It isn't covered in detail anywhere, was never reported, and set no precedent. It is however useful to illustrate a type of precedent on the post box rule established in A v B, because it was a more straightforward case that followed the decision in A v B. In those circumstances X v Y should not be considered notable enough for an article, but it would be an excellent addition to the article on the post box rule as an example of how it is applied. Essentially with cases like that we should do as the casebook does - include them in an article on the precedent/topic itself as an illustration of the point being made, not give it its own article. Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh that's a great idea that I hadn't thought of. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• So yeah, illustrative cases can be used as illustrations :). Problem solved! Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

State court cases

I mostly agree with the Court cases, but the first condition is an issue. Many precedent cases were set in District Courts, Courts of Appeal, or state courts. I think that it really should be based on historical precedent and information available. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by what you mean. The guideline doesn't state that a case must fulfil all those conditions - only any one of those conditions. A case that sets precedent in appeals courts or those courts of first instance which can set precedent is still notable. I will tweak the wording to make it clear that only one condition needs to be fulfilled for something to be considered notable.Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I must be having vision problems, missed the clause. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I only just stuck the "it must fulfil any one of these clauses" in a few minutes ago in reply to your concern. Thanks for the constructive criticism: spotting flaws like that before it gets to the Wikipedia: space is why comments from WP:LAW members are useful :). Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How about legislation?

Examples of existing (and deleted) legislation articles that raise interesting issues

Please add to this list -- it's just supposed to be a list.

• Texas abortion statutes (1961)

Discussion

Proposed guidelines look great. At some point, we should think about expanding this to legislation as well. There are a lot of stand-alone articles for random Bills and Acts that aren't necessarily noteable. Both for current legislation and historical legislation... But so far, so good! Singularity42 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts on legislation, then? My thought is that all legislation is automatically notable. It may be different for Statutory Instruments and their equivalent. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the obvious types of legislation that I don't think would be noteable would be Acts/Bills that ammend other existing legislation without much or any secondary source attention. In some cases, there's no need to mention them. In some cases, they can be added to the article on the Act being ammended. In in occasional cases, they should get their own article (see Bill C-2 as an example of an ammending Bill that got significant secondary source attention). Anyway, that's one possible line. Another line might be Acts who's sole purpose was to accomplish a single act (like back-to-work legislation). In those cases, the content should be attached to the article about the main issue (in back-to-work legislation, the info should be attached to the article about the labour dispute, etc., not a seperate article about the Act). I would have to take some time to think of other examples of legislation that aren't noteable for their own articles. Singularity42 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A base standard for Bills might be nice, but thinking about it you could only have that if you set a standard for Acts as well. I think all Acts should be considered notable by default, but Bills should be considered non-notable unless they can independently pass WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How to handle a summary order of the highest court in a jurisdiction

The policy current states that these don't merit articles. I would propose two amendments --

1) Summary orders may redirect to an article on the lower court's opinion if that has merited its own article. (duh.)

2) Over at WP:SCOTUS, they've got a Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume, and the feeling there is that every case on the list should have an article, simply so that every case has been accounted for. It's helpful to have a stub for summary orders, just to know that the case wasn't important. I believe that WP:SCOTUS is the only "jurisdiction" where this argument has been raised. What are your thoughts on this?

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that the summary orders there should be redirected to a section on the case in the lower court where the summary order is discussed. It is not worth having two-line articles just for the sake of completeness when the information would be far better as a section in an article on the central case. So yes, an amendment would be "summary orders should be redirected to an article on the case in the lower court, if that case passes the notability guideline". Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• But if the central case isn't notable, you would not support creating a stub just to indicate, "In X v. Y, the United States Supreme Court issued a summary order declining to hear an appeal of the case Y v. X" ?
• Good heavens, I fear that I may be in the presence of a deletionist. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not a strong deletionist. I'd classify myself as technically a deletionist (I'm not an inclusionist) in the same way that the Labour Party are technically left-wing. Besides, my above point is closer to the mergist philosophy. And no, I would not support the creation of that sort of article. Essentially my stance is "Summary Orders of the SCOTUS should be redirected to the article on the case in the lower court, providing that the case passes the requirements of the Law notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we have articles on each volume of the US Reporter, and have sections on published summmary opinions, or just link to wikisource. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume, which includes listings from each volume of the Reporter. I agree with your suggestion, with an amendment. For Summary Opinions on cases with articles, the Summary Opinion is redirected to a section of the article on the case that covers it. For those without articles or who don't merit articles, a cross-wiki link to a copy of the Opinion on Wikisource. Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• These are both great suggestions, regarding SCOTUS cases that are summary orders of non-notable lower court cases. Here's a workable synthesis: The Wikipedia article for these cases is a redirect to the proper page of Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume (optionally, to an anchor inserted at the proper line). And the text that appears there is indeed a link to WikiSource, with a caption indicating the summary order disposition of the case.
• This is probably exactly what both of you just said, so in that case I'm agreeing with it. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, I suggest that in cases where there is no article on the case that the Summary Order covers - where there is, the SO redirects to that case. This gives context to the SO, particularly because (ideally) the article on the main case would have a link to the wikisource entry. The best of both worlds, as it were. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we just said the same thing. If there IS a notable lower court case, we redirect to that case; these are the easy cases. If there is no such notable lower court case (or if it has not been written yet), that's where we redirect to the list, and modify the corresponding line of the list to 1) contain a link to wikisource, and 2) mention the summary disposition of the case, perhaps with a redlink to the case that was being appealed. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. Could we not just create a cross-wiki link in the redirect instead of redirecting it to the Reporter section, to then be directed to Wikisource? So the case would be a soft redirect to the Wikisource entry

I guess I'm not really familiar with how Transwiki links work. The advantages of going to the reporter first is that it gives us an opportunity to put a tiny little "gloss" on the case (e.g., provide a redlink to the lower court case, and explain why the SC case does not merit a WP article). My impression is that in many of these SC cases, the lower court case will be notable and an article on it just won't have been written yet, so we want to give people an opportunity to do that. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 02:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, but we can't really put a note about why there isn't a case in the Reporter article - we try to avoid self-referencing. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. We can just include a wikilink to whatever the Supreme Court terminology is for summary order. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 02:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Judges

Could we get a brief note of what constitutes a non temporary judge? Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A judge who has been appointed to make up for a deficiency (example: Judge X of the Family Divison has to go on maternity leave, We'll boost this County Court judge up for eight months while she pops a sprog and recovers) or, possibly, I'd think about including part-time judges in that as well. I note in the Nandor Vadas AfD you've argued that United States magistrate judges should be considered automatically notable. They're not covered by the current notability guideline draft - would you like to chip in with a) why you think they're automatically notable and b) how we can weave this in? Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that magistrate judges serve for terms is moot, because even state supreme court judges serve for terms. Their jurisdiction also is important. In rural areas, all matters are automatically delegated to a magistrate judge for the entirety of the case. I would say this makes this makes rural magistrates automatically notable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But why? The same is true of County Court judges in the United Kingdom, or even Justices of the Peace. Why is the fact that they're qualified to deal with an entire case something that makes them automatically notable? Why does it suggest 1) that they're important people and 2) that verifiable, third-party information can be found to create an article for them? The standard that a judge be a member of a court that can set binding precedent is a more reasonable one, because it limits it to those judges who can a) have a full impact on the law and b) make decisions of import, making it likely that there'll be coverage. Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

After much consideration, I suspect that I am very much in the minority on magistrate judges. Can you add your brilliantly concise definition as a reference to "non-temporary"? Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeedy, I'll add it in a second. Ironholds (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The common law of AfD

In slightly whimsical fashion, I've added a section where we can aggregate legal AfDs. I think it's important that AfDs are available to help us get a sense for the existing consensus on how AfDs are applied to legal cases. My particular choice of methods may rub the wrong way, but something like this needs to exist. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 02:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AfDs are not common law, except as relates to the subject articles. A case on apples is never considered to be applicable to oranges and vice versa. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted (per WP:BRD); I think that's probably a bad idea. Firstly, AfD doesn't really work on precedent. I nominated four articles on the same thing for deletion (think "list of events in year X"); three went one way, the fourth (later closed) went another. No reference was made at any point to the other AfDs, or to a fifth AfD on an almost-identical topic (which went another way - delete, delete, delete, keep, no consensus). Secondly, you're arbitrarily establishing what The Cases are based on a recent selection on AfDs, and essentially saying that these AfDs represent consensus, when in some cases the AfDs had as few as two votes. Thirdly, very few of the AfDs have anything that could be described as an obiter or ratio - most are simply "the decision was delete", with no reference to the discussion that influenced the closing admin. Fourthly you're turning admins into judges, allowing them to set some kind of influence on future AfD decisions, and fifth - we've used those AfDs in drafting the guideline. Since they're already weaved in, citing them as part of some common law is hopefully moot - indeed, the only time at which the AfD would be citeable and the guideline would not is if the AfD argument had been eliminated from the guideline, either by consensus from discussion or because it clashes with other AfD decisions used to make the guideline; either way, in that situation the other AfD argument is most certainly not something that should be cited. Ironholds (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't mean to ... um, I totally agree that AfD's aren't "common law" or in any way binding, or even that they're well-reasoned. I just think that, once in a while, they're good examples of how people have applied their beliefs in concrete situations. I think it would be nice if every law AfD were aggregated in one place, even if it's a separate page, so we can say, "Hey Ironholds, remember how we handled the XYZ situation? Doesn't this remind you of that?" Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That'd work, but it shouldn't really be part of the guideline. What's the "wow" about? Don't take my rather long counter-argument as a form of censure - I appreciate any suggestion as to how to make this guideline more useful. Maybe if we had a listing in Wikiproject:Law somewhere? Ironholds (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe a link to the WP:DELSORT page about law (if any) should suffice.  Sandstein  10:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on "highest court of a particular jurisdiction"

A court case is considered notable if it was heard in the highest court of a particular jurisdiction for more than a summary hearing. While I'm quite pleased with the overall guidelines, this particular line needs some fleshing out. I think a minimum level of jurisdiction should be set as I don't believe each and every case that reaches the Kalamazoo City Court to be notable. I think the term "jurisdiction" should be defined and a minimum level of jurisdiction be established so that the above line can take effect without becoming contentious (such as the "highest amateur level" line in WP:ATHLETE). I realise levels of jurisdiction do not always synchronize across political borders, so this is another thing to keep in mind when fleshing out this line. I'm not a lawyer so if I'm misreading anything about these guidelines feel free to correct me. ThemFromSpace 06:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Kalamazoo City Court is not the highest court, therefore unless the decision moves up, it would fail the notability test. Geoff Plourde (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Themfromspace: "jurisdiction" refers to a particular legal system. For example: the highest court in the jurisdiction of England and Wales is the House of Lords. The highest court in the jurisdiction of California is the Supreme Court of California - that sort of thing. Unless Kalamazoo has its own legal system, and the highest court in that legal system is the City one, the example doesn't really work. I could replace "jurisdiction" with "legal system" if that would help? Ironholds (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "jurisdiction" is better, as it takes into account that a country (particularly in federal systems such as the U.S. or Switzerland) can have one legal systems but many jurisdictions. In Switzerland, for example, there are cantonal and federal jurisdictions, as well as separate (to a point) criminal, civil and administrative court structures.  Sandstein  10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. This phrase makes much more sense now. ThemFromSpace 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed that phrase to "the subject of a reasoned opinion of a jurisdiction's highest court" without intending to change its meaning. But in many European jurisdictions, some proceedings before some courts (including high courts) are entirely in writing, so "hearing" isn't really applicable. The distinction between reasoned opinion and summary order is perhaps more useful. (Even so, many high courts dismiss many complaints on purely formal grounds, e.g. lack of jurisdiction or failure to pay court fees, and such dismissals should perhaps be explicitly excluded.)  Sandstein  10:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"reasoned opinion" - I like that phrasing. Some European courts indeed do that - the ECJ comes to mind when giving interpretative advice to the Lords. Any other comments on whether it should be expanded, tweaked, what, or do you think the rest of it works fine? Ironholds (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, I think the proposal strikes the right balance, but I am not sure whether we need a guideline on this topic at all. The notability of legal topics seems to generate little controversy compared to pop culture topics. If adopted, we would need to bring this page and WP:POLITICIAN as applicable to judges (originally written by me) into conformity.  Sandstein  11:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC) - Also, most supreme courts, judges and cases will meet WP:GNG anyway, if only through commentary in law reviews, media and so forth, so I am not sure whether this guideline is strictly necessary.  Sandstein  11:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A problem is found, particularly with cases, where the cases are important, yet could very well fails WP:GNG. If X v Y set precedent in a particular area of contract law, fine, but unless it is important precedent an academic is not likely to dedicate more than a paragraph in a book to it, which fails the "substantial coverage" requirement. You'd be surprised how badly the judiciary are covered by the media, at least in England and Wales - I found it an absolute trial to get the articles on many High Court judges to a reasonable standard. It's a lot easier when they die - obituaries are a godsend :p. what do you mean by "WP:POLITICIAN as applicable to judges"? Ironholds (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN currently considers "people who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including ... judges" to be notable. That's somewhat at odds with the current draft.  Sandstein  17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• 1) "the subject of a reasoned opinion of a jurisdiction's highest court" is fantastic.  Sandstein , you must not be a lawyer, to write like that!
• 2) Since I also feel that overinclusion of court cases is harmless (compared to other topic areas), I am sympathetic that this section is unnecessary. However, in the end I support it, because non-legally-trained editors can get trigger-happy at AfD, and this would help familiarize them with the thought-process that we apply when we join the discussion; my hope is that it will make them more tolerant.
• So we should keep the guideline, but  Sandstein  I hope you stick around and continue giving feedback; for example, it sounds like you'd have an opinion on this recent thread. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 14:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am a lawyer, but from the civil law tradition. Thanks, but I do not quite understand what you mean to say in that thread.  Sandstein  17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Civil law? Excellent! Can you think of anything we could do to harmonise this guideline so it works for both common and civil law systems? Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested such adjustments with my latest edit. The issue with certain proceedings in civil law countries being in writing only is already addressed, and the general role and function of judges, courts and cases is very similar in both traditions. An important distinction is that courts in common law countries tend to be courts of general jurisdiction, while civil law countries tend to have more separate civil/criminal/administrative courts. Also, technically, civil law courts cannot set "binding" precedent, because court decisions are not formally considered sources of law in that tradition, but even in these systems, which lack a formal stare decisis rule the precedents set by the highest courts are generally followed as a matter of fact. I've proposed a formulation that takes these distinctions into account.  Sandstein  22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my understanding of civil law systems, hence why I felt the precedent-based approach unfortunately made it incompatible with civil law. The changes are great; I support including them in whatever "final draft" we get. Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Courts

I' ve replaced "a court with historical value or importance" with a reference to WP:GNG, because the prior criterion was a bit vague. Any court with historical value or importance will generally meet WP:GNG through coverage in specialist publications.  Sandstein  11:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd put that section back in and have a reference to GNG. Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN

Suggestions to bring these in line, then? Judges aren't really "political" offices, although I appreciate in some places (several US Supreme Courts, for example) they are elected. Thoughts on how we can bring them in line? My suggestion would be simply eliminating the "judges" bit from WP:POLITICIAN, since all judges covered by that work under the current guideline. Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, although some of the judges in the US qualify as politicians. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Through their election, or is there something I'm missing? Ironholds (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of European judges would qualify under WP:POLITICIAN too. I've boldly added that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the curent version

I think that the current version of this guideline is far to lax, and basically contains two exemptions from the General notability guideline, namely a court case is considered notable if it:

1. is the subject of a reasoned opinion of a high court. However, I don't think you can claim notability for a court case by reference to the case itself - that would be an example of self-referencing. I disagree that if a case has been recorded (no matter at what level of court), then that case is notable. Another way of saying this is that a case is notable just because there is a primary source exists for a particular case;
2. it has set a legal precedent that is binding. Surely every court case is binding, until such time it is overturned, or a new precedent is set? In any case, whether a case is binding or not is purely a matter for a judge to decide on the day, and is purely a matter of opinion.

My view is that only the verifiable evidence of notability justifies a court case for inclusion as a standalone article, otherwise you end up relying on the primary source or subjective importance as inclusion criteria, and I think that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The first one certainly needs changing - I only meant that it should apply to the highest court in a legal jurisdiction. The second one is perfectly acceptable - you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of "precedent". binding precedent is a decision which binds courts that face similar cases in the future to follow a particular course of action - something that actively changes the law. Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin Collins, you raise an interesting point. I feel like this notion of "precedent" is more complex then we're letting on: it's hard to say that a case is "binding precedent", since the "binding" part is more than just a function of court hierarchy -- it also takes creative lawyering to assert that the case is analogous to the dispute at hand. So, I agree with you precisely; every opinion of every appeals court meets this condition, unless it is somewhere explicitly disclaimed that the opinion constitutes a precedent (there are some appeals courts that can't create precedents).
• I am unsure whether I agree with your first point. One could argue that the text of a case is sufficient to establish its own notability, because the United States Judiciary Act (for example) informs us that things said in these opinions have legally binding power. On the other hand, I think it's remarkable that our policy makes very little mention of the special relevance of legal authorities and scholarly authorities in establishing notability. We need the opinions of scholarly authorities (e.g. professors) because it's really hard (even for lawyers) to determine how important a case is just by looking at it (for reasons we agree on, i.e. the non-transparency of the phrase "binding precedent"). As for "legal authorities", what sets law apart from most of the other areas in Wikipedia is that (unlike, say, chemistry), the things we regard as true are deeply wrapped up in the opinions of authorities. If Judge Joe says "an apple is an orange," we can add a footnote to a science textbook that says "an apple is not an orange," but we have to give his opinion space simply because of who he is.
• In other words, perhaps the magical property that makes a case notable is that uttered by a notable person!
• This is really difficult. I don't pretend to have all the answers ... Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• His first point was due to a flaw with one of the rewrites - it's now been limited, as it were. The second one - yes, we require an academic or media source to say that it is a piece of "binding" precedent that changes the law. This is fairly easy to source - journal articles, textbooks, case comments, that sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we should equate "academic or media sources". I'm remembering our discussion earlier, when I mentioned that, if a case appears in a casebook, 1) it influences how thousands of students understand an area of law, and 2) it is suggestive of the thought process of the one professor who put it there. These are two separate measures of notability: 1) notoriety, and 2) authority. I'm saying that our policy needs to account for the special role of academics (authority) in establishing the notability of cases; the media (notoriety) are pretty irrelevant to 95% of legal cases. Since I assume this policy is designed to be applied by non-legal Wikipedians (true?), I would like to develop for them a good heuristic for the importance of professors and judges in our field.
• That would be a good place for a footnote, suggesting that if notability is difficult to establish, someone should get on Lexis or Westlaw and Shepardize the case. That's what we did at that Scottish case a few days ago -- I asked you to go into your legal database and look it up.
• I fear that this post is hopelessly vague? ... Upon request, I could try to be more specific (e.g. propose some text). Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• A brief mention of "it may be difficult to establish the notability of cases based on mainstream sources, such as the media. Please feel free to bring any articles or AfDs where this is the case to the attention of Wikiproject:Law, who have access to academic journals"? We need to keep the bit about mainstream sources in, since not doing so would create a massive exception to WP:GNG. At the end of the day notability guidelines are there to provide verifiable material, something that can be done through notoriety as well as notability. The motives of the source in bringing the information to the public's attention is irrelevant if the source is reliable. Ironholds (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I certainly don't want to remove the stuff about mainstream sources (unless, unless -- unless we want to say upfront that this page is designed to augment WP:GNG? I've noticed that, under each of the headers, we mention compliance with WP:GNG as a sufficient condition. Maybe, instead, you want to mention this in the lead, in a stand-alone paragraph: "This guideline determines whether a legal article that fails WP:GNG is nevertheless notable." Then you could remove those lines.)
• And also, agree that only good things could happen if the users of this policy are reminded to raise thorny issues at WP:LAW.
• It sounds like I still haven't articulated a case for the "professors thing", and it's almost 4am here so I'm not mentally able to do it now. Hopefully I'll have a dream in which I come up with better reasons, and tomorrow report the results. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 07:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your first point may certainly be worth implementing - what do others think? Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument that a case is notable by reason that it has been the subject of "reasoned opinion" does not stand up to examination. A court case may have been held in the highest court in the land, conducted by the finest lawyers in front of the wisest judges and have been the subject of the best reasoned judgement, but all of these terms are relative. In fact "highest", "finest", "wisest" and "best reasoned" are just measures of subjective importance, but in themselves are not verifiable evidence of notability. As regards whether a court case is binding or not, I think that is a red herring; some of the most notable cases in history such as Dred Scott v. Sandford are no longer binding, but because of the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, it is clearly notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But at the time, that case was binding precedent. Any decision of the highest court in a country is going to set binding precedent, because it either a) redefines the law, changing it or b) holds up the old standard but in a higher court, in which case their decision automatically becomes the highest precedent in that area of law. You seem to be getting confused as to what we mean by "binding precedent" - binding precedent is a decision which binds other judges with similar cases to follow the decision in that case. Binding precedent is not something established by every court decision. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether a case was a binding precedent or not is still a matter of opinion, not fact. For instance, there is not the equivalent of the Oscars for legal cases which provide binding precedent that would distinguish them as such: no one wins a prize for winning or loosing a case which other judges may or may not refer to subsequently. It seems to me whether a binding precedent has been created or not is actually an argument put forward by legal commentators in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources - there is not other way of establishing this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds, although I don't agree with Gavin.collins that this policy is unneccessary, I do agree with this most recent post. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You may find this discussion helpful: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 9#Notability of cases and doctrines. bd2412 T 02:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A7

The A7 speedy deletion criterion applies narrowly, and cases and other legal items do not fall under its purview. Accordingly, I am removing the mention of A7 from the intro. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Avoid overuse of notable

Refer to what you are really doing here -- deciding what topics related to law and legal matters have enough significance to have a Wikipedia article using objective criteria.

Constantly using notable without reference to inclusion criteria and WP:SNG is going to confuse new users who think something else is being defined. patsw (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point; I'm tweaking the text a bit to make it clear that we're defining what notability is for legal cases, not directly applying WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a need for Notability (law)?

I am not sure there is a need for this guideline at all. It seems to me to be one of the best documented subject areas in Wikipedia: the number of books which comprise of commentary about legal cases surely indicates that the General notability guideline is by far the best indicator as to whether a case is suitable for inclusion as a standalone article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this springs from a hypothetical vacuum. It would be helpful if the proponents of this guideline could offer recent examples of where the mere mention of WP:GNG did not create a consensus for including or excluding an article but led to editing disputes -- which could have been avoided if there an objective consensus-derived subject-specific Wikipedia notability guideline for legal articles in place. patsw (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• this and this, for example, are AfDs decided for reasons not covered in the GNG which would be covered by this guideline. Ironholds (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why do we need courts anyway? Doesn't everyone agree on being equitable? patsw (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I have a legal counter to that joke, actually, hah: everyone knows we do this in the common law but that in equity. Ironholds (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All joking aside, I have to agree with Gavin. I cannot imagine a single instance where the presence of this guideline, as currently written, would lead to a different AfD outcome than would result from the application of WP:N alone (but would love to see AfD examples that counter my assertion if anyone has them). Accordingly, this proposal seems to be a pretty good example of WP:CREEP. I don't think there is much chance of developing the consensus required to make this a guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if it won't "lead to a different AfD outcome", it can serve other purposes, e.g. educating non-legal Wikipedians into the standards that should be applied to legal articles. Often, I make a late arrival into an AfD that had previously been dominated by non-legally-trained editors who felt that an article was not notable based on WP:N, and it's difficult to express why I feel the article should belong. Usually I end up turning the tide, but I have to recruit tons of people from WP:LAW. With this policy in place, non-legally-trained editors will be able to make these determinations autonomously Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I've contributed to this draft, I to currenty do not see a pressing need to expand WP:GNG in this way. In fact, almost all articles it currently applies to would probably also meet WP:GNG.  Sandstein  09:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any application of WP:CREEP here. If there's a consensus about what articles ought to appear, let the discussion happen now rather than spread over several AfD discussions. The guideline is also helpful to allow an article to obtain a quick Keep. SNG's are not always a deletionist's friend. patsw (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The advantages of letting people know which kinds of cases are likely to survive AfD based on past AfD decisions outweighs the danger of CREEP, for me. Notability of court cases is not a trivial subject; we should give people some help. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Are U.S. Magistrate Judges and U.S. Bankruptcy Judges inherently notable?

In light of some recent AFD's, I've opened this conversation - your views are welcome! bd2412 T 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Inherent notability of U.S. federal judges

I disagree with the premise that federal judges are inherently notable only if they reach the U.S Supreme Court. In my view, every Article III judge, whether on a District Court, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court is inherently notable. This is a position that requires Presedential nomination and confirmation by the Senate. Federal judges at all levels have lifetime tenure. At the court of appeals level, they decide cases that set binding precedent for a half-dozen or so states. I consider them all sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, just by virtue of having attained the position.

My comment above does not extend to non-Article III "judges" such as bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, patent law judges, administrative law judges, etc. Some of those may be notable, but they are not inherently notable by virtue of their position. TJRC (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For consistency and convenience, given the discussion just initiated by User:BD2412, above, I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Are U.S. District Court Judges and U.S. Court of Appeals Judges inherently notable?. TJRC (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of redirects

Currently, although this document is only a draft, and may never become an actual guideline or policy, there are several redirects in the WP namespace to it:

• WP:CASES and WP:Cases
• WP:JUDGE
• WP:COURTS

The presence of these redirects implies that this document is a finished product, rather than a stake in the ground for discussion purposes. It is already being cited in AfDs. In WP:Articles for deletion/Stan Bernstein, once editor cited to both WP:COURTS and WP:JUDGE, apparently as though this were a working guideline.

I propose deleting these redirects without prejudice until such time as this document becomes an accepted guideline or policy. Any objections? TJRC (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks with no objection, so I'll be taking this to WP:RfD. TJRC (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to make Wikipedia:Notability (law) a guideline

I propose that this version of Wikipedia:Notability (law) be declared an official Wikipedia guideline. Josh Parris 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that conversation here has died. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 23#Wikipedia:Cases suggests that this guideline has failed to achieve WP:consensus, but perhaps the lack of active discussion indicates a lack of conflict.

• Oppose. I remain unconvinced that such a guideline is needed to ensure the adequate coverage of law-related subjects. If any subject fails WP:GNG, this generally means that we do not have enough reliable sources to write a standalone article about it, and hence should not.  Sandstein  11:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm very reluctant in widening the GNG unless the specific subject demands it. Currently there is no mention of whether sources need to be independant of the subject, and this is a crucial point for the exceptions this guideline would give to those who don't meet the GNG. I cannot support a guideline that would permit articles backed up by only primary sources. Point one of this guideline is another concern: I fear it will open up the flood gates to vast numbers of nonnotable lawyers, similiarly as WP:ATHLETE has done with sports. I do feel this guideline has potential, so I wouldn't advise it to be scrapped or marked as historical if it does not pass. ThemFromSpace 04:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, but there is some value here. The section on judges doesn't make a strong case for a special exception—and besides, inherent notability of people is a messy and oft-abused concept.

  I also suspect that the section on courts is largely moot, because most high courts will have received some degree of secondary source coverage through everyday reporting of cases, litigants and court decisions. (Perhaps in countries where legal journalism is ill-developed, this is not the case; in those cases, Wikipedia could become a convenient venue for basic legal research. However, WP:OR applies—there has to be independent coverage for us to report anything but a summary of the dry facts. At that stage, a stub linking to a decision/soft redirect to Wikisource might sometimes be more appropriate, depending on the nature of the decision and editors' difficulties in creating an unbiased summary.)

  I do, however, think that opinions of a high court would be a reasonable exception to the GNG, because they're the product of a primary source that is essentially reliable per se. (It it is the most authoritative opinion of what the law is, and is cited in this fashion by secondary sources.) The clarifications for how to handle summary orders and the like by redirect are reasonable—unless independently notable, there's not much to write an article about in those instances. As for precedent, that's a good start, but we might also discuss a method for handling unpublished decisions of high courts (binding upon the parties, but not precedent-setting in their own right). TheFeds 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This draft does not represent a consensus. For example, the notability criteria for U.S. federal judges are being discussed at WP:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Notability of U.S. Federal Judges, and the consensus is completely contrary to the criteria being proposed here. TJRC (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the idea but oppose current draft As written, this would only work as a guideline if editors had explicit latitude do say "such and such a judge/court/whatever is not notable" even if it meets the criteria. I'm thinking of judges and courts which are in autonomous areas or which are run by indigenous peoples or, in countries which allow religious law to have the weight of civil law, certain religious courts. It could easily be the case that for some types of cases, they are the highest court. It's also conceivable that in some countries, city and other local courts would have final jurisdiction in certain cases, such as traffic fines or zoning/property-use disputes. That doesn't necessarily make them notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Details need reconsideration. In one direction, are we going to say every fully reported case decided by the highest court of each of the US States is notable? I don;t think that would have general consensus. In the other, every US District court judge that has been nominated for AfD in the 3 + years I have been here has been kept, and this establishes very firmly what the general consensus is about that. This guideline would have to conform to reality. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per sandstein. Protonk (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would rather not adopt such a broad guideline. Legal topics should need to satisfy the general notability guideline instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most significant legal decisions that deserve encyclopedia articles are "leading cases" and the subject of widespread independent comment in reliable sources --- i.e. they are widely cited, held to be persuasive even if not directly controlling as precedent, and the subject of commentary in law journals. The GNG is good enough. This also contains no guidance about statutes or individual constitutional articles, and as such does not yet occupy the field enough to be called a "notability guideline on law". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Articles on cases that do not have sources are an open invitation to original research. We should continue to apply the reliable sources requirement of the general notability guideline to articles on legal cases. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing gets past the GNG. There are hundreds of highest courts which have dozens of cases each year, which do not need to be individually covered. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly suppport WP:JUDGE and WP:COURTS, which should be no-brainers. While I also weakly support the entire proposed guideline, I would be open to continued discussion to tighten up so it conforms with WP:GNG. Not every "reasoned" case is notable, IMHO. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Reject instead Fails to make the case for why the general notability guideline shoudl be extended. Suggest marked as "rejected" instead. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have mentioned, I'm not convinced that a subject failing WP:GNG should be here. Location (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose in the direction of DGG in particular, and most others. "Highest court" in jurisdiction is actually an oxymoron in the US because our local-State courts are 100% separate from our federal circuit courts. Which highest? If charged with a federal offense, the highest would only be the US Supreme Court. On the far lowest end of the spectrum, I could probably write myself an autobiographical article for a speeding ticket I contested (and failed) at the county level. It so happens to be the highest on the tier of 3 traffic authority levels around here. This might have future potential but probably only as some specifics to WP:CRIME or other project. Legal matters are covered from several angles in existing considerations already, be them deliberate or entirely accidental. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose this draft. Under this proposal, (1) intermediate courts, including most if not practically all state circuit courts of appeals and the like, are, for no reason I can discern, considered "high courts," and (2) all, count 'em all, of the cases on which they publish opinions are ipso facto notable. I'm trying to be kind here, but this betrays an absolutely stunning lack of understanding of the caseload and work output of even "important" courts like the D.C., 2d, or 9th Circuits. It's pedestrian. Really pedestrian, and boring, and not in any way notable. Just for kicks, here are the most recent cases on which the Second Circuit published opinions:

• Lynch v. City of New York, No. 08-5250-cv, holding that a district court did not commit clear error in finding that crime control was at least one of the purposes of a police department policy requiring that any police officer who causes injury or death by firearm be subjected to a Breathalyzer test; upholding the policy under the court's "special needs" balancing test;
• WWBITV, Inc., v. Village of Rouses Point, No. 08-5112-cv, upholding district court's decision that plaintiffs, who owned a building that was demolished by the village after it was badly damaged in a fire, were not entitled to a hearing before condemnation because the damaged building was in a dangerous condition;
• United Transp. Union v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 08-0854-cv, reversing the district court and holding that the Railway Labor Board acted properly under the Railway Labor Act "when it held that Amtrak was permitted to discipline an employee for conduct that occurred while that employee was functioning as a union representative."

I mean, these cases, while doubtless important to the parties, are just not remotely proper subject matter for an encyclopedia. Go ahead and check out, oh I don't know, decisions of the Mississippi Court of Appeals and let me know what you think. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic here; sorry, but this is a very bad proposal. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how one can write a neutral article on a topic without resorting to WP:OR if the GNGs aren't met, i.e., if there aren't at least a handful of independent, secondary sources that discuss the case/judge/court directly in and some detail.Yilloslime ^T_C 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What can be salvaged?

The discussion above shows this guideline doesn't stand a snowball's chance.

Is there anything that can be salvaged from this guideline? Josh Parris 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping the restriction on case law, and loosening the restriction on courts themselves. 99.34.78.67 (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this guideline be rescued?

The discussion above shows this guideline doesn't stand a snowball's chance.

Should changes be made to the guideline to make it acceptable, or should be be {{rejected}}? Josh Parris 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Mark as rejected and wait a few months and start over. Or just mark as rejected and be done with it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am one of those who do not think the guideline is necessary, so I have no suggestions for improvement. I am willing to take a look at this again in the future, however, my recommendation is likely to be the same unless there is a large change in WP:GNG or WP:Inherent notability. Sorry. Location (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)