Wikipedia:Notability (law)

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

This guideline determines whether the law-related subject of an article that fails the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is nevertheless notable.

Cases

Shortcut

WP:CASES

A court case that fails the general notability guideline is nevertheless notable if it fulfills any of the following requirements:

It is the subject of a reasoned opinion of the highest court in a legal jurisdiction.^{[Note 1]}
It has set a legal precedent that is formally binding (in common law systems) or practically binding (as is generally the case with decisions of the highest courts in civil law systems).

When applying the general notability guideline, the notability of the parties to a case (e.g. celebrities) is not sufficient to establish the notability of that case.

Judges

Judges who fail other notability guidelines such as WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN are nevertheless considered notable if they are non-temporary members of a high court as described below. This excludes judges appointed ad hoc, as is common in arbitral tribunals, or as temporary replacements for recused or otherwise unavailable regular members of the court.

Courts

An individual court that fails the general notability guideline is nevertheless considered notable if it is a high court.

For the purpose of this guideline, "high courts" are

International courts.
In common law systems, courts that can set binding precedent. (Examples include United States courts of appeals or U.S. state supreme courts.)
In civil law systems, courts of last resort. These are courts whose determinations of law and facts are to a substantial degree^{[Note 2]} not subject to review by other courts. Examples include the several supreme courts of Germany.)

Types of court are assessed by applying the general notability guideline (in practice, they are almost always notable). For example, the topic of Crown Courts in general is notable, but an article on the individual Crown Court in Aylesbury should be redirected to a list of individual courts.

User criteria

User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of attorneys

Notes

^ In the case of a summary order, the title should either be redirected to the article on the case in the lower court (if this case fulfills the requirement of this guideline), or redirected to the section of the Law Report that discusses it. In cases where the judgments are public domain, the case should then be linked to the text of the summary order on Wikisource.
^ The availability of review of some questions of law by other high courts with a narrow standard of review (such as the ECJ, the ECHR or a special constitutional court) does not prevent the court at issue from being a high court for the purpose of this guideline.

[1] In the case of a summary order, the title should either be redirected to the article on the case in the lower court (if this case fulfills the requirement of this guideline), or redirected to the section of the Law Report that discusses it. In cases where the judgments are public domain, the case should then be linked to the text of the summary order on Wikisource.

[2] The availability of review of some questions of law by other high courts with a narrow standard of review (such as the ECJ, the ECHR or a special constitutional court) does not prevent the court at issue from being a high court for the purpose of this guideline.

[Note 1]

[Note 2]