Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Docket (court)

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. However, I do see the nominator's point and IMHO this was not a frivolous nomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Docket (court)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm seeing a lot of external links, but no significant coverage of the court docket as a concept, in reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 22:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the nominator claiming that there's no coverage in reliable sources anywhere of Docket (court)? If needed, label it as {{stub}} and {{citation needed}}. I added it to {{WikiProject Law}} where someone there might take an interest. The article needs improvement, not deletion. patsw (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the nominator claiming that there's no coverage in reliable sources anywhere of Docket (court)? I'm claiming I can't find any, yup. And nor can you from the look of things. ╟─Treasury Tag►Storting─╢ 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that there are no sources anywhere for a well-written article on this topic is obviously wrong. The problem for me is that I am not a subject matter expert and I am certain that a subject matter expert would create a better article that I -- which is why I added it to the relevant Wiki-project and suggested adding templates. There is WP:NOTIMELIMIT. patsw (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I'm sure there is no Wikipedia policy to support this, I know that there are sources out there. That no sources exist on the page means that the article itself needs to be improved, not deleted. Hopefully someone at {{WikiProject Law}} can provide sources, as I would imagine them to be more familiar with the subject. - SudoGhost™ 23:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are sources out there – classic MUSTBESOURCES. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 07:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say rather, that it is a classic case of not following WP:COMMONSENSE. Sources seem to be hard to find (due to the fact that searching "court docket" and similar terms yields actual court documents), but deleting the article is the wrong path to take. Tagging it, or notifying Wikiproject:Law would be a better path. - SudoGhost™ 07:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a note, I've added one source to the article, but placed the other sources on the article's talk page, not to the article itself, because I wanted to discuss on the talk page them before inserting them into the article. - SudoGhost™ 08:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But how long do you suggest we leave the article tagged before deleting it? I don't believe that there is significant coverage which is capable of being added. What is your proposed compromise? A month? Two months? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. This meets that criteria, and the other criteria of WP:GNG. - SudoGhost™ 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not available online so I can't assess it (incidentally, can/have you?) but regardless, it does not qualify as multiple reliable sources, as required by the GNG. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it right now. Also, in addition to the one I linked above, I've added a source to the article, and did you check the talk page? There are multiple sources there. Very likely not all of them qualify for significant coverage, but there are certainly multiple sources that do, there and in addition to the one I added on the article itself. I think between those, notability has certainly been established, and if not, I'm certain more can be found. - SudoGhost™ 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's such a common legal term that it's basically impossible to do a normal search for sources - there are just too many hits to filter through. However, it is a widely used and significant legal concept, so I have no doubt that good sources are out there - perhaps some good legal histories. In the meantime, it's a valid stub and I see no good reason to delete it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason to delete it. Other than the fact that nobody can provide a single example of significant coverage, presumably? ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 07:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE doesn't apply to the comment you responded to. Might want to give that page a "once over" before you link it again (specifically the providing an explanation part). - SudoGhost™ 08:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The person has said it's notable yet has failed to provide any sources. Seems like an illegitimate argument to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources != explanation. What you linked states "asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source", not just source. Hence, WP:ITSNOTABLE does not apply. - SudoGhost™ 09:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It's still an exceptionally poor argument and you know it. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a poor argument, and that isn't what you said. Editors will WP:AGF so please don't link things that don't apply. The fact that technical limitations apply due to the pervasiveness of the term is a pretty good argument that the article will be harder to find sources for than other articles. As you didn't follow the guidelines of WP:BEGIN (specifically #10 concerning WikiProject:Law), his comment about legal histories is a good point that is most certainly something the people at WikiProject:Law would know, so "exceptionally poor argument" is invalid and unnecessary. - SudoGhost™ 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is widely used in this way in the US. It is not in Britain - the online version of the Chambers dictionary does not give this usage at all, whilst the Oxford English dictionary labels this usage as US (those are the two most widely used dictionaries of British English). There is a reasonable chance of people wanting to look it up. The information in this article is wider than I would expect to find in a dictionary and is capable of expansion, so I don't think that it can be dismissed as a dicdef. I would assume that US legal encyclopedias do define it. Should anyone care to, there will be more to be written about the historical origins (in British English a docket is a label attached to, eg, a parcel, detailing its contents) and the development of court record systems in the US. Need I go on? --AJHingston (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a fundamental misunderstanding here of the process: An Afd for notablity is argues that the topic in itself should not have a Wikipedia article because no good Wikipedia article could ever be written about the topic. I and others argue that the topic has encyclopedic significance given its wide usage in the United States and numerous appearances in reliable sources. That, I would think is self-evident, hence, it is a notable topic. The current state of the article is that it {{needs citations}}. That is a reason to add templates and improve the article, preferably by a subject matter expert to provide cites for the summary which now exist in the article. The article needs improvement not deletion. Impatience with the pace at which the article improves is never a good reason to delete. The Wikipedia is a work in progress. patsw (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fundamental misunderstanding here of the process. I think not. An Afd for notablity is argues [sic] that the topic in itself should not have a Wikipedia article because no good Wikipedia article could ever be written about the topic. That's what I'm suggesting. I and others argue that... Exactly: so it's disagreement on our part rather than a misunderstanding on my part. Thought so. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2.1, "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations". Warden (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's traditional, on Wikipedia, to provide some sort of reason when making conduct allegations of "unquestionable vandalism or disruption." It's also traditional (not to mention obligatory) to provide reasoning when commenting in a deletion discussion. But then I'm sure you know all that. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word obviously means "in a clearly perceptible manner, evidently, plainly, manifestly;". In this context, it means that the discussion should be closed speedily because the nomination is self-evidently frivolous or vexatious. The point of a speedy keep is to cut short discussion and so detailed discussion and argument is therefore contraindicated. I explain this logic on this occasion so that you understand the point being made. Naturally, you and others may disagree with my position but so it goes. Warden (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked for an explanation, I didn't mean, "Define the word obviously." I meant, what is it which identifies my nomination (which another editor supports, so your speedy-keep is now irrelevant anyway) as being "unquestionably vandalism or disruption"? ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind him. He loves nothing more than to try to mischaracterize honest attempts to reduce the amount of crap on this encyclopedia as somehow disruptive or frivolous. Luckily, nobody takes much notice. Reyk _YO! 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note—now that an editor other than my good self get my point, the above speedy-keep should be discounted as per WP:SK, which states that SK2 can only apply in cases where "nobody unrelated recommends deletion." ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 18:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all get your point. However, I believe those of us who disagree with you think this is a perfect time for one of those "occasional exceptions" to the notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: in fact what is 'obvious' is that this topic has no notability except in the context of a Court of law -- so this topic should be discussed in that article. This would have been a merge or redirect !vote, except for the fact that (i) this article appears to contain no material that is not either (a) WP:Synthesis or (b) an inappropriately long list of external links, and (ii) that it is an unlikely search term (all that would be needed would be for the Docket disambiguation page to link to Court of law). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said of trials, bailiffs, judges, juries etc etc. You could say none of those have "notability" (I assume you mean in the non-Wikipedia sense of the word) except in the context of a court of law.--Kubigula (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could -- but with far less justification. All of those topics would appear to have significantly more, and more obviously non-trivial, WP:SECONDARY coverage than court dockets -- and so a more legitimate claim to notability. For one thing, the latter three are independent actors within the court drama (and the former, the sum total of the drama) -- as opposed to merely a listing of the acts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like a playbill :)?--Kubigula (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia works. Half of {{WikiProject Law}} can be defined as "no notability except in the context of a Court of law". Are you suggesting that the contents of each Wikiproject be merged into one article each, since they obviously have no notability outside of the primary topic? - SudoGhost™ 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no "court of law exclusion" in Wikipedia. Good articles exist on numerous legal terms like indictment, verdict, legal motions, etc.

Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state: Notability-related AFD's are an evaluation of the topic itself, not merely on the number of citations in the article and their quality as of 2011-06-15. Are Delete voters seriously suggesting that there is no content on this topic that could be summarized and cited to make a good article? So why doesn't patsw do it? As I mentioned already, I am not not a subject matter expert in this area, and a good article on a legal topic would require one. patsw (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Court of law. As it stands this article is poorly sourced, filled with synthesis, and contains way too many external links. I also think that it would improve the content to have it in one article than spread over two. Reyk _YO! 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well apart from anything else, Court of law is a broad conceptual article the title of which covers all legal systems and the whole of legal history. It is capable of expansion within that. A docket is a usage specific in time and place and so does not belong there unless it is seriously suggested that Court of law should contain a section discussing in detail how the keeping of court records had developed over time and across legal jurisdictions. All of which would be unhelpful to somebody trying to find out what a docket was now in a legal context (and don't anyone dare say that 'everyone knows') and would probably be attacked as 'Synthesis' anyway even though the bringing together of information from several sources is the essence of an encyclopedia. --AJHingston (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Amidst all the blustering above it seems that nobody has even bothered to perform a simple Google Books search for "court docket" in order to be able to give an informed opinion. The first eight of the results found include these two, including an entry under that very title in a paper encyclopedia, which are enough to demonstrate notability. Anyone wanting to expand the article further can also look through the other 500 or so results. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done!. Phil, why can't you be an anyone as well? patsw (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"These two" are a couple of bare mentions and a WP:HOWTO? Hardly evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference that is neither a "bare mention" nor a WP:HOWTO. - SudoGhost™ 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A three-quarter page encyclopedia article about this precise subject is not "a couple of bare mentions", and there is nothing wrong with using a "how-to" guide as a source - WP:NOT#HOWTO (which I presume is what you mean by the reference to the irrelevant WP:HOWTO) is a policy about how articles should be written, not about what sources can be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought that the book on legal practice in Virginia was a valuable source for a second reason, because it says something about how it developed historically. As the WP article notes, legal records today are largely virtual, and the words and case law can become mysterious without an understanding of the way they developed. That is precisely the sort of thing that Wikipedia is for. I confess to being completely baffled by the deletion lobby on this one. If the original sources will exist out there, whether or not online and some of them are the physical objects themselves, then a good encyclopedic article will be possible. Wikipedia is a work in progress. --AJHingston (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger; sufficient sources to meet WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but remove "(Court)" qualification. Unwarranted assumptions (even made in good faith) by those unfamiliar with a subject area will often result in excessively limited, apparently even minimally responsive, search results, notwithstanding that abundant sources meeting the criteria of WP:SECONDARY exist to support a well-done, even appropriately expanded article. As limited as they will necessarily be in this subject area, internet search results can nonetheless be improved by utilizing more accurate -- as well as less limiting -- search terms. For example, historically, prior to the 19th century, dockets were usually referred to as "Docket Rolls" or "Docket Books" (and are frequently so referred to as the latter even today in formal parlance) and during the pre-early modern period in Britain, as "Doggetts".

Although dockets (or docket books) are sometimes referred to generally (and informally) as "Court Dockets," they have usually been described more specifically according to the legal specialty of the court, such as "Admiralty Dockets" or "Common Law and Equity Registers" (Bakken, Gordon Morris, and Brenda Farrington. Law in the West. (Taylor & Francis, 2001)); Bankruptcy Dockets (Earle, Peter. "The Making of the English Middle Class: Business, Society, and Family Life" (U. Calif. Press: 1989)); etc.

Docket books have been and sometimes still are used by legislative bodies such as Parliament and the U.S. Congress (Binder, Sarah A., and Forrest Maltzman. Advice & Dissent: the Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary. (Brookings Institute Press: 2009)); or agencies or commissions of the executive branch (Grimshaw, Polly. Images of the Other: a Guide to Microform Manuscripts on Indian-White Relations. (U. Illinois Press: 1991)); etc. Dockets have been and may still be used not merely as "calendars," but as repositories of legislative votes (Binder and Maltzman, p. 41); to record liens and "for a creditor to establish a claim against an alleged bankrupt" (Earle, p. 409); historically, in Britain, to record the collection and payment of statutorily-imposed fines; as well as to record wills and the conveyance of real estate, the payment of attorneys, patents, and even "grants of ecclesiastical benefices and dignities...in the gift of the Crown". Descriptions and discussions of the varied uses of "Dockets Rolls" and "Docket Books" can be found in histories of the legal profession such as Paul A. Brand's The Origin of the English Legal Profession. (Oxford, 1986) and C.W. Brooks's Pettyfoggers and Vipers of the Commonwealth: The "Lower Branch" of the Legal Profession in Early Modern England (Cambridge Studies in English Legal History). (Cambridge U. Press: 2004), particularly through Chapter 4, "The Increase in Litigation," and even more particularly, in the detailed endnotes to that chapter.

Other useful and reliable secondary sources of information on the varied forms and uses of "Docket Rolls" and "Docket Books" are contemporaneous and historical reports on public archives such as the annual reports by the American Historical Association and research guides prepared by official archives, such as the U.K.'s Public Record Office (Bevan, Amanda. Tracing Your Ancestors in the Public Record Office (Issue 19 of Public Record Office Handbooks). 6th ed. Great Britain. Public Record Office). Of course, what I've listed here are only a few examples of what I was able to identify in about 5 minutes that's accessible generally on the internet, which is typically only a tiny, tiny percentage of what would be accessible to a subject matter expert under the auspices of a law library or even a less specialized academic library. Such libraries provide access to the far richer resources of proprietary databases of law journals, law reviews, etc., as well as to historical reports, guides, books and journals that aren't yet digitized.Ravinpa (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why do you suggest the disambiguator is removed? This is not the only usage for the word "docket". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd made the recommendation because the use of dockets in the legal context is far broader than just in courts, as I'd illustrated in the 3rd paragraph of my earlier response, but the lines between executive and legislative branch uses blur with judicial ones increasingly the further back one traces their legal history, which would make it impossible to remain within the bounds of "court docket" while adequately addressing that history. Perhaps, given your point -- which I grant is a fair one -- the better disambiguator would be "(legal)" rather than "(court)".Ravinpa (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no good reason why articles on legal terminology such as this should not be kept. The article as it stands is good enough for Wikipedia and can obviously be expanded if someone takes the time to do so. It is already beyond the level of a stub, and as we should all know, even stubs are perfectly acceptable articles. I really cannot see the nominator's reasoning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "good article" (subjective term there!) is not the standard for inclusion. Adherence to our notability threshold is. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it still does not meet the guidelines for notability? Also, that is not what the editor said. He stated it was good enough for Wikipedia; not "good article". There is a key difference. - SudoGhost™ 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it still does not meet the guidelines for notability? That is not what I said. I was pointing out that the comment, "I see no good reason why articles on legal terminology such as this should not be kept," seems to go against our notability guidelines, which doesn't contain a provision that any article on legal terminology should be allowed to stay. Therefore, the comment was irrelevant to this process. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 14:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I suggest you carefully read both Red herring and Non sequitur (logic) before linking them, as neither were used properly. Second, your entire response to the editor above is irrelevant to this process (which you yourself failed to adhere to). The statement was followed by an explanation, stating that it does meet the general notability guidelines. - SudoGhost™ 14:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seemed to have said that articles on legal terminology should always be kept ("I see no good reason why articles on legal terminology such as this should not be kept") and that position is simply not compliant with our policy. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I won't be continuing this line of discussion with you, so you'll have to disagree on your own if so. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're changing the meanings of the words of others so that you can easily refute them. Quoting the sentence that you did without keeping the context of the following sentence is misleading. It's not a matter of my disagreement, it's a matter of you arguing something that wasn't said and doesn't apply. Also, I didn't say you stated the above, I asked for clarification. I'll ask you again, do you still think it does not meet the guidelines for notability? Your insistence above that you did not say it no longer meets the guidelines warrants clarification on that point. - SudoGhost™ 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be continuing this line of discussion with you. — I'll ask you again, do you still think it does not meet the guidelines for notability? — Do you really want me to repeat my previous comment? OK, if you want. I won't be continuing this line of discussion with you. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As SudoGhost said, you are misinterpreting what I said. I did not say that all articles on legal terminology should be kept. And maybe if you reread my post you will see that I didn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't continue the discussion, stop posting. Your comment above is not part of the discussion, and is borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE. You were wrong in your assessment of another editor, got called out on it, and now you refuse to discuss the merits of the article, but wish to solely comment on the wordings of the editors (which you reword and take out of context to suit your statements). If it wasn't when this AfD was started, notability has certainly been established now. Unless, based on the references currently in the article, it can be shown that notability has not been established, the article should be kept. - SudoGhost™ 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above bolded !vote is a repeat from the same editor. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 15:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the bolding of the word kept, so as not to give the appearance of a separate vote, as that was not my attention. - SudoGhost™ 15:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above is not part of the discussion, and is borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE. I think otherwise, but WP:WQA/WP:ANI/WP:RFAR are open to you of course. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 15:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As far as I'm concerned, it does meet the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag: "which doesn't contain a provision that any article on legal terminology should be allowed to stay". And that's not what I said! You rather seem to be forgetting that AfDs are largely a process of opinion. If guidelines were set in stone we would not have AfD debates. They're not (which is why they're guidelines, not policies) and we do. Dismissing my comment as irrelevant is tantamount to stating that your own opinion (which you have put stridently again and again) is the only one which has any weight. Frankly, this is garbage. You have your opinion, others have theirs. Notability on Wikipedia is subjective. At the end of the day, it is not determined by editors endlessly quoting the contents of guidelines, policies and essays at each other, but by the opinions of editors who contribute to an AfD debate. I know there are editors who would like notability to be determined by a rigid set of rules, but that's not the way it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is how the AfD process should work: The idea is to vote and give the reasoning for ones vote. Then discuss and clarify the votes or positions, in the meantime the article gets improved if necessary. One has to assume that editors who bring their opinions here know the policies and guidelines, and arguing with them that they don't understand them is fruitless. My opinion is that the article currently passes the WP:GNG tests. patsw (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.