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 speedy keep. The issues have been addressed, deletion does not seem an option here. Tone 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas v. City of Jeannette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a rambling personal essay presumably presenting the background for a court case which isn't discussed. It's just a story about Jehovah's Witnesses passing out brochures. There is no assertion of importance or significance. Wikipedia is not a legal textbook or a directory of court cases. Only one reference is given. Drawn Some (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Amending to request Speedy deletion as copyright violation per author's admission of the source and the copyright notice at that source: "Copyright © 2009 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved." at bottom of page where author below admits to taking material. Drawn Some (talk)

You may wish to consider this. Just because a company slaps a copyright notice on a web page doesn't mean that they own the rights to everything on the page. Some of it may be public domain and putting up a copyright notice doesn't change that fact. --Richard (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Apparent copyright-infringing material has been eliminated and there is now assertion of importance or significance in the article. I am willing to have this case closed but I am concerned about the hundreds or thousands of legal cases collecting here half-finished, bloated with rambling copy & pasted copyrighted text, lacking explanation of importance, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually seen these hundreds or thousands of articles or are you just casting aspersions because you've seen one and are now assuming that hundreds or thousands more exist? This is really a disguised insult but I will refuse to take offense and assume that you meant it in the best of faith. Since you're concerned about the multitudes of poor articles on SCOTUS cases, perhaps you would care to review the cases listed in United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. This comment is only half snarky. I attempted to create articles for each of the cases listed in that article. Some of the articles are better than others. Some are quite stubby and in need of expansion. Not all of the articles were created by me so some of them may even be quite good. I'll let you try to figure out which are the god-awful ones that I created and which are the high-quality ones that were created by others. If you have the interest, feel free to critique these articles and suggest areas for improvement. After that, there is a longer list in List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment. Most of those were not created by me (except perhaps some of the JW-related ones). And then, when you get done with those, you might consider looking at Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. That'll keep you busy for a while. However, you will at least have a chance to assuage your concerns about the "hundreds or thousands of legal cases collecting here half-finished, bloated with rambling copy & pasted copyrighted text, lacking explanation of importance, etc." Hey, if you look hard enough, you might even find some that are not notable. If you're really interested in this kind of stuff, join WP:SCOTUS. We're looking for a few good men (and women). --Richard (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep an incomplete article on a US supreme court case. such cases always have hundreds of references. A place for a nice quick speedy non-admin close. DGG (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Only one reference is given but it is a reference to the actual Supreme Court decision. That ought to be plenty. This is an incomplete article but that argues for completing the article, not for deleting it. All U.S. Supreme Court cases are inherently notable. If the Supremes chose to accept a case, it means that it had sufficient merit to warrant their consideration. (They decline to hear many, many cases each year.) The only part of the article that has been "written" so far is the "Facts of the Case" section and, although it may seem like a "rambling personal essay", it is actually a verbatim copy from the actual decision of the Supreme Court. Because the decision is effectively a publication of the U.S. government, the text should be in the public domain and so no copyright violation should exist. I do admit that the verbatim copying of the text from the decision does not yield the ideal prose for an encyclopedia article. However, that is an argument for rewriting the text, not for deleting the article. (NB: I'm an admin but I won't speedy close this AFD because I'm the creator of the article and closing the AFD could be construed as a conflict of interest.) --Richard (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you assert that ALL Supreme Court cases are inherently notable and should be included in Wikipedia or only United States Supreme Court cases? This article makes no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I probably went too far out on that limb. I'm sure we can find some cases that aren't really worth much of an article. However, if you let me off the hook on that somewhat rash assertion, I would point out that this is one of the Supreme Court cases having to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses and I definitely assert that every one of those cases is notable (see United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses) because of the impact that the cases as a group have had on First Amendment constitutional law. (really... read the article). This particular case that you have nominated for deletion is one of four cases known in constitutional law as the "Jehovah's Witnesses cases" because the Supreme Court ruled on four JW-related cases on the same day (May 3, 1943) This day is important because the rulings on these four cases mark an important reversal on the part of the Supreme Court where they went from saying that the need for patriotic national unity trumped First Amendment rights to asserting the opposite. --Richard (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps not the most notable SC case ever, but books and journals have discussed it enough that it seems clear a good article could exist here. If the current article sucks, in this case it's a reason to edit it, not delete it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Yes, all U.S. Supreme Court cases are inherently notable, and this one in particular has significant resonance in regard to the Jehovah's Witness movement. The article needs editing, but it does not deserve deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I stubified and removed the cut-and-pasted text (which I mistakenly identified in the diff note as "copyright-infringing," and which, to be honest, wasn't particularly helpful in understanding the issues in question). My hope is that someone with the appropriate expertise will expand the article appropriately. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to relevant subsection of United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses unless the article is sufficiently expanded compared to this section. NVO (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. I'm glad that the original author chose to write an article about the case, which is a good (and hitherto overlooked) topic. Wikipedia isn't limited to people whose writing skills are perfect. It is a good place for people to perfect their writing skills. Mandsford (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the US Supreme Court case that established that the Federal judiciary will not enjoin the enforcement of local criminal laws on constitutional grounds. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2009 (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.