Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McCleskey v. Kemp

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 of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mccleskey v. Kemp

Delete - The article is a poor summary of a Supreme Court case. It's written in legalese rather than English, and does not include information on how this ruling actually affects the legal world. D.valued 03:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This ruling is massively important, as said in the original version of the article (note that I included some references to help people to check it out). This is a case that defined racism as applied to the death penalty. In effect, what this case meant is that it is okay to kill a black man, and that doing so isn't racist. It has major repercussions and is a heavily discussed case, with 748 unique google hits, out of a total of 17,100. Yes, it was written in legalese. But something written as X v Y is really only going to be useful for lawyers, so what is the problem? Can rewrite it to make it able to be understood by laymen if you'd prefer. Oh, and rename the article to McCleskey v Kemp since the capitalisation was wrong. There also shouldn't be a . after v. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with fixing the capitalisation, but there does need to be a period after the "v" - see 481 U.S. 279 ( the report of the case itself). This may vary in other countries, but U.S. cases always have it. BD2412 T 20:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reading just Live from Death Row and Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. convinces me, without need for further research, that this is a case that warrants an encyclopaedia article. Keep. Uncle G 20:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - it sounds like this was a very important Supreme Court case. Maybe it needs some rewriting but it certainly doesn't need deletion. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Speedy keep - I will personally attend to this article once I finish my current work assignment - this case was notable for its rejection of statistical evidence showing that the death penalty is biased against blacks (with a shrug and a comment that it's up to the states to solve). Massively important case, bound to be found in any textbook on the death penalty. BD2412 T 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: vote changed to speedy keep, upon reading nomination - this article has been AfD'd for being a poor summary, written in legalese and lacking information, none of which is an appropriate reason for deletion. BD2412 T 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a little cleanup but verifiable and notable court case. Capitalistroadster 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Anytime the Supreme Court actually decides to hear a case its notable. This article needs major works. In its current state its gives a simplistic view of the case and its holding. Nolamgm 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Does that mean that I should make an article for R v Trinh and McLean? Prior to R v Murdoch, that was the biggest case in Australia in the past 2 years, about 2 men that murdered 2 asian prostitutes, with the stated reasons being because they were forced to do so by the Hells Angels motorcycle club, who is the largest organised crime gang in the Northern Territory, Australia? Since the case got zero international attention I thought that it probably wasn't worth it. It was in the Supreme Court for about 3 months though, was quite a lengthy trial. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a different setup - U.S. Supreme Court cases generally don't have trials, as they are reviews of lower court decisions, with arguments taking no more than a few hours. However, if R v Trinh and McLean was a notable case (which is how it sounds), by all means include it! BD2412 T 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I should have been more specific. What I meant was that anytime the United States Supreme Court decides to hear a case it is notable. This is because they have control of what cases they will review and their decisions have the potential for far reaching consequences in the United States. To the best of my knowledge the equivalent in Australia would be the High Court of Australia. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory appears to be a trial court, much like New York Supreme Court. I know the Peter Falconio case is getting a lot of attention in Commonwealth countries.I do not know anything about R v Trinh and McLean, therefore I cannot comment on its notability. Or in summary, what BD2412 just added while I typed this. Nolamgm 14:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. An important case by any measure and articles needing rewrite should be labelled with clean-up tag, not listed for deletion. Jtmichcock 19:07, 14 December 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.