Wikipedia talk:Notability (law)

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)

Actually, HMA v Ritchie and Morren (1841) 2 Swin 581 is cited in a number of law books, under several names, seemingly as a precedent for a rule relating to the admissibility of evidence: [1]. (Notice also how problems with OCR mask search results, such as by rendering Morren as Zllorren). The deletion was probably wrong. James500 (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2014 (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)

A Bill introduced into a legislature is not legislation. It is a proposal for legislation. Neither is a draft Bill or a draft statutory instrument.
Statutory instruments receive a considerable amount of coverage. There is Halsbury's Statutory Instruments and The Statutory Rules and Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised. I am under the impression that there are similar collections of annotated statutory instruments and other material in LexisNexis and Westlaw. There is the Table of Government Orders and the Index to Government Orders. There are volumes containing collections of revised annotated statutory instruments relating to particular areas of the law. For example, Sweet and Maxwell's Labour Relations Statutes and Materials (2nd Ed) contains eighteen of them running to 83 pages. Statutory instruments also receive coverage in treatises. For example, the table of statutory instruments at the front of the 1999 edition of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, which indexes references to individual instruments in the book, is nineteen pages long. Statutory instruments are said to be assuming increasing importance due to the "skeletal" nature of some primary legislation. Some of them do look like a code, or make substantial amendments to one. They receive amendments and are discussed in case law and other commentary. James500 (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2014 (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)

A possible criteria is that a court is notable if it is known to have existed before a certain date. The introduction of printing is one possible date. The year 1660 is suggested by section 3(3) of the Public Records Act 1958. (This reproduces a provision of 1898). The year 1715 is suggested by section 1 of the Public Record Office Act 1877. (The provisions in question forbid the destruction of court records on grounds of historical importance: [2]). My preference would be for a later date. Common sense suggests that both those dates need to be revised forward due to the age of the sources. Common sense also suggests that a court can be historically important without all of its records being historically important. The year 1852 is suggested by the following calculation: 1877 - 1715 = 162, 2014 - 162 = 1852. The year 1921 is suggested by a report from UNESCO: [3]. The year 1912 is suggested by the Virginia Public Records Act: [4]. The year 1892 is suggested by section 8(2) of the Public Records Act, 1993: [5].

Another possible criteria is that a court is notable if any of its records have been selected for permanent preservation by the national archives of a country.

Another possible criteria is that a court is notable if a sufficiently independent and reliable source has said in express words that it is important, significant, interesting, unusual, or so forth.

Another possible criteria is the existence of a special Act relating to the court. This will be necessary to maintain consistency with notability criteria for legislation if we accept that primary legislation is notable, which we probably will. James500 (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I obtained the year 1900 now included in COURTS by rounding the more recent dates cited above to the nearest century. James500 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2014 (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)

Whether a decision binds a particular court is determined by precedents (assuming the doctrine of precedent hasn't been altered by statute). So, for example, in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co, the Court of Appeal held that it was bound by all of its previous decisions, subject to three exceptions (conflicting decisions, decisions inconsistent with those of the House of Lords, and decisions given per incuriam). Whether a decision is binding is not determined by anything that is not a source of law. It is certainly not determined by "significant coverage" or anything else invented by Wikipedia. James500 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2014 (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)

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)

This discussion is now located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Archive 4#Notability of U.S. Federal Judges. James500 (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2014 (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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability may be relevant to further discussions on this talk page. James500 (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2014 (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)

Comment Compliance with GNG is not necessary to avoid POV or OR.

I can't see any evidence that WP:JUDGE would result in vast numbers of articles that would not otherwise be created. Subjecting judges to a higher standard for inclusion than athletes would arguably be incompatible with neutrality.

WWBITV, Inc., v. Village of Rouses Point, mentioned above, has been included in West's New York Digest: [6]. It was also covered by the New York Law Journal: [7]. This suggests that that case may be proper subject matter for an encyclopedia. Three examples is far too small a sample to prove anything: They could be anomalous. Whether Wikipedians consider a case to be pedestrian or boring is arguably irrelevant to its notability (WP:BORING). James500 (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (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)

This proposed guideline needs to be rescued. We need a subject notability guideline for every subject. As far as I am aware, it is not physically possible to prove that a topic does not satisfy GNG. In addition, the requirement for multiple sources is particularly obstructive if you are looking for paper based sources which are, by their nature, difficult to search. James500 (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

I have included books of authority (every one of which will satisfy GNG anyway) but I am not sure about the sort of book that can be used in the manner allowed by Boys v Blenkisop (described here).

CHAMBERS is based on experience at the AfDs for 3PB, 5 Stone Buildings, 11 Stone Buildings and 5 Pump Court Chambers. A number of deletions of articles that possibly should have been moved or merged took place around that time. Those deletions should be reviewed at some point.

The deleted articles are 4 King's Bench Walk, 11 King's Bench Walk Chambers and New Square Chambers. King's Bench Walk, Inner Temple and New Square, Lincoln's Inn are obviously notable: [8][9]. James500 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This talk page now has an archive. The last revision before archiving commenced is this one. James500 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the Crown Court centre at Aylesbury from WP:COURTS. It is not obviously non-notable. "Aylesbury Crown Court" gets 5 pages of results in GBooks. "Aylesbury Assizes" gets 25 pages of results. (I assume the assizes were held in the same building, as it seems to have been built before 1750: [10]). James500 (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The outcome of the AfDs for R v Khan and Dehn v Attorney-General indicate that criteria 2 of CASES has achieved consensus. James500 (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Treaties

It appears that treaties are legally binding on states: E.g. [11] [12] [13]; and see generally; cf. [14]. They should therefore be regarded as notable in order to maintain consistency with the criteria which embrace all binding cases and legislation. It appears that treaties are capable of being a source of international law: [15]. This indicates notability. There are about 64,000 treaties registered with the United Nations, which is thought to be about three quarters of the total number: [16]. This is a small number (individual countries pass more legislation than that), compatible with notability. There are collections of treaties including collections of annotated treaties such as: Miller's "Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America"; "Multilateral Treaties: Index and Current" by Bowman and Harris: Commentary; Sweet & Maxwell's European Community Treaties; Sigeru Oda and Hisashi Owada, Annotated Treaties and Conventions (3rd Ed: Tokyo: Sanshodo, 1989). Such coverage indicates notability. Therefore, I shall now effect WP:TREATY. James500 (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• There appears to be such a thing as a "non-binding agreement" which is not a treaty: [17] [18]. I did not include these because I doubt they are within the scope of a guideline for law. James500 (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

General criteria

• I did not include "edicts of government" because it occurred to me that "judicial opinion" might, taken literally, without clearer qualification, include decisions of inferior courts (such as magistrates, quarter sessions and county courts) that have no precedential value (O Hood Phillips, A First Book of English Law, 4th Ed), which is not what I have in mind.
• Source that persuasive precedents are "primary authority": [19]
• Other sources on this terminology: Introduction to Paralegalism, Paralegal Today Paralegal Career for Dummies, Basic Legal Research for Criminal Justice and the Social Sciences, Opinion Writing and Case Preparation, Introduction to Legal Nurse Consulting. I have not attempted an exhaustive explanation of this terminology, but it seems to include those sources that are law. There may well be national differences as to what this includes.
• In framing this proposal, I had in mind that there might be a paucity of textbooks on the laws of small and/or poor countries, especially for their less recent past, for reasons that have more to do with the business model of commercial publishers than they do with notability. James500 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Treaties and other international agreements

This guideline previously read "A treaty is notable." A lot of treaties aren't, they're pretty prosaic, and the U.S. alone is party to several thousand treaties, most of which are not notable.

I've taken a stab at refining this a bit. Since this is not a guideline in force, I thought the best approach would be to just be WP:BOLD and make the edit for discussion (not least of which because I don't think the existing text reflected consensus, anyway).

Quick summary of my edit:

• Multilateral treaties that are or have been in force are inherently notable;
• Multilateral treaties that have never been in force are not inherently notable, but may be notable on a case-by-case basis;
• Bilateral treaties are not inherently notable, but may be notable on a case-by-case basis;
• International agreements are treated the same as treaties, even if one or more signatory does not consider it a treaty, per se;
• The guideline applies regardless of the title of the instrument (i.e., 'treaty", "agreement", "convention", etc.).

TJRC (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@James500: I just noticed that you've very recently created the "Treaties" section I just revised. I didn't realize that; I'd thought this was a long-dormant document. I'd welcome your input on my comments above. TJRC (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The logic behind WP:TREATY, as I wrote it, was that the proposal presently says all binding cases are notable, and all treaties are binding. And also the other reasons set out above. James500 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any existing consensus on the notability of treaties, one way or the other. Stare decisis doesn't apply at AfD, and, as far as I can see, you and I are the only ones to have discussed treaties on this page. James500 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think several thousand is, on the scale of Wikipedia, a small number. Even if the number wasn't small, I wouldn't regard that as an argument against notability.

I'm not sure what you consider "prosaic". I think, for example, that anything that significantly affects the liberty or personal safety of individuals, or the property rights of individuals or juristic persons, or significant amounts of property, or is likely to do so, is important, and would expect it to receive attention as well. I would include in that not only direct interference but also procedural innovations that impact these things such as a convention agreeing to a right of appeal in legal proceedings in the signatory countries. I would have thought than an extradition treaty would normally fall within that kind of thing, though it would help if I was told its precise terms.

Since SNG only create a rebuttable presumption that a topic merits an article, I will not be convinced by small numbers of specific counter examples.

I'm not convinced a treaty signed by two countries should automatically be treated differently to one signed by three. James500 (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at AfD, I can't find any evidence that bilateral treaties are being deleted, let alone in significant numbers. From this I infer there is probably already a rough consensus they are generally notable. James500 (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Where, here's where I'm coming from. This isn't to argue with you or to say you're wrong, but just to set out the idea behind what I wrote.

First, I'd like to distinguish between "notable" in the Wikipedia sense and "important." Notability refers to how much attention the subject has garnered, and importance is really an opinion matter, but not really all that related to notability and the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. One might argue that all important treaties ought to be notable, but we don't really work with "'ought to.

That leads me to the idea that a treaty, like any other subject, may not be notable, even if it affects the liberty or property interests of a substantial number of people; that is, many of these important treaties may note be notable. Like any other subject area, a particular treaty may be WP:run-of-the-mill (this is what I meant by "prosaic"). Whether a particular treaty is binding is not one of the criteria. We don't regard every enacted statute or every published appellate court opinion as notable either, even though they are binding.

Okay, now my reasoning on the particulars:

On the distinction between treaties entered into force and those not entered into force: my take is that most treaties that have not gotten into force are not notable; and should certainly not be deemed inherently notable. Some never-in-force treaties may be notable, but I think a treaty cannot be inherently notable unless it has actually proceeded to the stage where someone on the planet is bound by it.

On the distinction between multilateral and bilateral treaties: multilaterals obviously affect more nations and people than others. There are years spent getting such treaties into shape allowing so many nations to sign up for it, and generally, they get substantial publicity in the process; usually about the provisions of the treaty itself, but in some cases, where the proposed text has been held closely to the vest, for the secrecy around it. I don't think it's a far stretch to say that multilaterals generally have a higher level of notability. So my take, which I suspect is more inclusionist than most editors, is that a multilateral treaty that has entered into force is inherently notable. This is really, in my opinion, the only type of treaty that is inherently notable. I realize you disagree on the "only" bit; but I think most editors who disagree with this statement would disagree about the "inherently" bit. To use the example I gave, I just can't consider a routine extradition treaty between the U.S. and Finland (TIAS 9626; June 11, 1976) as notable in the Wikipedia sense. Obviously, to a person on the lam in Europe trying to find a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US, it might be very important; but not notable in the Wikipedia sense.

The other two points, we agree on, and I don't think they're controversial, but I'll repeat them here just for discussion purposes:

Whether a agreement is considered by any of its adherents to be an "agreement" rather than a real "treaty" is not material to determining notability. (In fact, it might be worth going further that even if every signatory considers it an "agreement" rather than a treaty, that's not worth considering for notability purposes.)

The style of the agreement -- whether it uses the word "treaty", "convention", "agreement" or anything else in its title -- is not material to notability.

It does look like you and I are the only ones discussing, but I'll ping WP:WikiProject Law and WP:WikiProject International law and see if anyone else would like to chime in. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are a number of SNG that appear to allow for "inherent notability" based on perceived importance that is distinct from notability based on the level of coverage (broadly equivalent to "notoriety"). Some SNG, such as BIO and EVENT, assert that, on Wikipedia, "notability" has its normal meaning as an ordinary English word. They cite a dictionary definition of "notability", originally, and for many years, one drawn from Encarta which said it refers to something "significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" (recently replaced as a dead link: [20], cited here and elsewhere; perhaps it could be verified with a CD-ROM copy of Encarta; in any event, it was there so long it likely still reflects consensus; broadly supported by this from OUP, especially their definition of "noteworthy" as "interesting or important"). Deserving attention isn't the same thing as receiving it, and being significant or interesting doesn't necessarily involve being unusual. I would say "significant" basically means the same thing as important.
• MILL is an essay. I don't agree with the argument it advances. I think that, taken to its logical conclusion, it would produce absurd results, and that this proves it is erroneous. I think one could, for example, argue that Belgium is a run of the mill country on grounds that it is neither particularly large or wealthy, and is not a major power.
• I consider binding cases to be likely to receive significant coverage (WP:NRVE) and, in any event, inherently notable. Criteria 2 of WP:CASES presently treats them as inherently notable. This criteria seems to have achieved broad support both on this talk page and at AfD.
• In general, I am in favour of treating sufficiently important topics as inherently notable, principally because I think the application of GNG alone is likely to produce odd results due to the imperfections of the sources on which it relies, and also the labour required to find them. James500 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that as a practical matter all bilateral treaties that have ever entered into force between recognized states are going to pass GNG anyway. What I would suggest, however, is that an alternative approach is to encourage merging bilateral treaties articles into other articles wherever possible. However, I know bilateral relations articles were previously the subject of a lot of dispute here. Some of the more general points: I agree that the style of agreement is irrelevant for notability purposes, even if it is, in fact, just some kind of "soft law" agreement rather than a truly binding treaty. I agree that multilateral treaties should be considered "more notable" than bilateral treaties, but I'm not entirely convinced that all multilateral treaties are inherently notable (e.g., a trilateral treaty), but multilateral treaties that are produced by recognized intergovernmental organizations (e.g., a UN convention or even a regional human rights agreement) will almost always be notable. But, to go back to my earlier point, I think that in many cases it would be appropriate to merge the article about the treaty into an article about the overarching convention. Anyway I'd be glad to step in and discuss this some more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• If all bilateral treaties that have entered into force satisfy GNG, then they are all notable by definition, and NLAW should say that they are notable. I would adopt the same approach for anything that was likely to satisfy GNG (though I think that SNG should expand on GNG as well, as not all forms of notability can be reduced to GNG). I don't think that NLAW should encourage merging bilateral treaties articles into other articles wherever possible. The introduction to N clearly states that notability only creates a presumption that a topic should have an article and doesn't preclude merger of related topics, so the issue of whether a notable topic should be merged isn't within the scope of what notability guidelines are primarily for. Including such discussion would greatly increase the length and complexity of NLAW, and might prove "undraftable". The inclusion of such discussion has previously met with opposition, for example when I tried to include similar comments about delegated legislation. There are also practical objections to such mergers. When someone clicks on the blue linked name of a document, they will expect to be taken to an article about the document, and not an article about a broader topic (the principle of "least surprise"). In my view, the best way to explain a treaty is to go through it one article at a time in the order of the articles; but the best way to explain the relations of two countries would be according to subject matter of those relations (eg headed sections on subjects like "extradition", "customs union" etc). This is similar to the difference in organisation between Halsbury's Statutes and Halsbury's Laws. If a bilateral treaty is merged into a broader topic, such as an article on relations between the two countries, we will have to decide whether to include a separate section for each treaty therein discussed, or break up the material relating to the treaty according to its subject matter (which might mean that the treaty is discussed all over the article and not in any particular single place), or both. All three approaches have drawbacks. Having a separate article on the treaty prevents us being pushed into that particular corner. I don't think it would be desirable to say that multilateral treaties are "more notable" than bilateral treaties, because Wikipedia "notability" is a threshold for inclusion, not a continuum. The words "more likely to be notable" might be appropriate. James500 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree both with that bilateral treaties are inherently notable or that any article on a bilateral treaty will always pass GNG. Take a look at the 500+ page book Treaties in Force that lists all the treaties to which the US is a party, and see if you really believe every single treaty listed in this phone book passes GNG. Keep in mind that this is only a subset of bilateral treaties; it doesn't include any treaties to which the US is a party; or treaties that were once in force but no longer are.

To pick a random example, do you really think that the treaty between the US and Finland, Project agreement for cooperation in the field of icebreaking technology, 33 UST 3261; TIAS 10223 (July 23, 1981), would pass GNG? I don't.

I'm thinking even my suggestion that all multilateral treaties are inherently notable may have been a stretch. There is about 180 pages listing them. Reflecting on it now, perhaps International agreement for the creation at Paris of an international office for epizootics, with annex, 26 UST 1840; TIAS 8141; 57 LNTS 135 (January 25, 1924), would not pass GNG, despite having a few dozen signatories. TJRC (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, we are not talking about all bilateral treaties, only those that have been in force at some point. I'm not at all daunted by the length of the list in Treaties in Force. Google estimates that there are 130 million books in the world. And there are perhaps a billion websites. Even allowing for the unreliability of some of those, that is enough to cover just any subject you could imagine, never mind the entries a five hundred page list. I've seen lists of items that I know for a certain fact are notable, that are much longer than that. As I observed above, there are about 64,000 treaties registered with the United Nations, which is thought to be about three quarters of the total number. This is a small number (individual countries pass far more notable legislation than that), compatible with notability. Law and international relations are fields that receive a particularly high degree of coverage. As I observed above, there are extensive collections of treaties, including collections of annotated treaties. As to the level of coverage that might be expected, Appendix III of Recognition of Governments in International Law, by Talmon, for example, contains a very lengthy list of treaties concluded by authorities in exile recognized as governments. For what appears to be the overwhelming majority of these he gives other sources that contain coverage. So, if other bilateral treaties are similar, we can infer that they generally satisfy GNG. To characterise bilateral treaties in force as notable, it isn't necessary that every single one of them satisfy GNG. If the overwhelming majority do, that would certainly suffice. In fact, a simple majority would probably suffice. If you can manage to identify two outliers that do not satisfy GNG, that means nothing, as the number is too small, and notability only creates a presumption that a topic should have an article. Turning to the examples you have given, having looked for coverage, I am satisfied that the agreement of 1924 that created the International Office of Epizootics (OIE) does indeed easily pass GNG. The other one, for icebreaker technology, amended in 1983, isn't exactly particularly devoid of coverage either. So I don't agree that those examples do fail GNG. James500 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

About the recent reversion

@User:TJRC: Regarding this edit, two editors (myself and Mendaliv) agree that bilateral treaties in force are notable. You disagree. I can't see any grounds for according any of your arguments greater weight, or any of our arguments less weight. So consensus appears to be in favour of the change. But, even if I was wrong about that, it doesn't matter. Material doesn't have to achieve consensus to be included in a proposal, especially one marked as rejected, or as a draft, which is what this is. A proposal only has to move in the general direction of consensus. And you are outvoted at the moment. So "bilateral treaties in force generally satisfy GNG" (I assume we don't care about small numbers of outliers) is the majority position, and is what should go into the proposal, until that situation changes. If you want it out, all you have to do is produce other editors who disagree. James500 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:STATUTE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:STATUTE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Wikipedia:STATUTE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:LGNC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:LGNC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Wikipedia:LGNC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:LEGISLATURE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:LEGISLATURE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Wikipedia:LEGISLATURE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)