Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls

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 Snowball Keep. Royal broil 03:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls[edit]

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

Pretty not notable court case. Sources 1 are primary and 2 and 3 are fleeting mentions. Beerest 2 Talk page 21:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per section 2 of WP:CASES as it has set a legal precedence. While this may not be a guideline at present, inherent notability is present in legal cases where precedence like this one is set because it can have ramifications for others in later legal cases. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CASES is a failed proposal that flopped pretty badly. I dont suggest using it as a keep argument. Beerest 2 Talk page 22:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misread what I said. I am not using it as such, I am using the argument that there is WP:Inherent notability in legal cases where precedence has been set. Plus I have since added other sources which means that it should fulfil WP:GNG now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: If it was reported in the supplement to the Federal Reporter, it's notable. Not every district court decision gets into the F.Supp. And not just because of its name ... there are plenty of amusingly-titled in rem cases out there, but most of them (like most federal court cases) do not get reported. If it was reported, it is citable legal precedent (It would be nice if the article could explain this better, possibly through cites to law-review articles that might discuss this). To nominate this for deletion on the stated grounds shows a poor understanding of what constitutes notability based on our other articles about court cases, and indeed a poor understanding of law in general. (Cf. United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness. I fail to see what distinguishes this article from that one) Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it fails WP:GNG then it fails WP:GNG. Theres nothing special about court cases that makes them exceptions. Beerest 2 Talk page 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that same reason that he gives is exactly why it does fulfil GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - He says there is some mentions. Big Deal. Beerest 2 Talk page 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I humbly submit that you, Beerest, as a Swede with no stated familiarity with American law, at least not on your user page, are in way over your head here. For the sake of your credibility, I would strongly consider withdrawing this nomination if I were you. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - "If it fails WP:GNG then it fails WP:GNG" See WP:VAGUEWAVE. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Google Scholar it has been cited in other cases. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Addendum: One of those cases, Riegel Textile Corp. v. Celanese Corp., 493 F.Supp. 511 (S.D.N.Y., 1980), says in a footnote that Clacker Balls settles the question of whether the FHSA's seizure rules violate due process or not. That, I think, establishes notability in a legal context. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the court case has a funny name. No, this does not make it non-notable. The case has set a precedent used in several others cases and its been reviewed in law journals. Its had more than a fleeting impact.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources indicate notability. James500 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the above, just because this case has an odd name, that in no way invalidates the notability. Mat ty.007 20:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Jury's decision seems fairly unanimous. I move to request the usage of the Snowball clause and dismiss this case for closure M'lud. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the weirdest precedents in United States law. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. buff bills 7701 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2014 (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.