Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon v. United States

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.

There is a unanimous call to keep this article, including two votes to speedily keep. The article describes an important Supreme Court case from 1984; however, it is entirely unreferenced. From a brief search of law websites, the documentation available on this case is of such volume and notability that I cannot see how it might be termed "non-notable." However, it does appear that the article has been mistakenly titled. The case in question appears to be UNITED STATES v. LEON, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), argued January 17, 1984, decided July 5, 1984, with Justice J White delivering the Opinion of the Court. This is not the same as LEON v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 882, a 1966 petition for a writ of certiorari. Therefore, I will move this article to United States v. Leon, and source the article to references.

Finally, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, this underscores yet once more the importance of paying attention to WP:V. The verifiability policy is a central pillar of Wikipedia article policy, and I hope we pay more attention to it than we currently do. This AFD is closed. encephalon 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leon v. United States

NN. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. This is a notable 1984 case dealing with our 4th Amendment rights, in particular concerning Search & Seizure. See Cornell Law School summary.   (I do note that this page reads as if it were taken from a reference work.)   ERcheck 04:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per ERcheck abakharev 04:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per ERcheck. A quick Google test of a few phrases doesn't indicate that this is a copyvio, but it could use some cleaning up. I've done very minor cleanup. --W.marsh 04:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think Wikipedia should be a legal library but the really important cases will likely be searched for and read. Ifnord 05:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as important US case. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep please! Ashibaka (tock) 05:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, annoying abbreviated nomination. Kappa 07:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for obvious reasons Descendall 07:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, absolutely no reason given for this supreme court case being "NN". Plenty of reasons given for it being "N" though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seriously. Reyk 10:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. SCOTUS cases are national news in the US when they're in progress, often have prominent places in even general history books when complete, and are heavily analyzed and discussed in both law and general circles. I would support a merge of this article to an article on evidence procedure (or even an article about the "good faith" evidence principle) in the US, but right now this article is fine as it is. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I find it very odd that an administrator nominated this for deletion. This seems like it would be a very obvious keep to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of wikipedia. Descendall 11:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I can understand the nomination since as it is written, the article doesn't do a great job explaining the significance of the judgment. I could provide a much clearer expostulation of its significance. Dottore So 11:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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.