Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soering v. United Kingdom

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The result was withdrawn by nominator.

[edit] Soering v. United Kingdom

Soering v. United Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Poorly written, non-notable case. —BoL 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. —BoL 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the nom. --Lquilter (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said as nom. You know what, I'm gonna close it. —BoL 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep being poorly written is not a reason to delete, but to rewrite. At any rate, the wording about this case in Extradition suggests it set a notable precedent. --W.marsh 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm inclined to think that all cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights are necessarily notable (for the same reasons—which, since this case appears to be notable or meritorious of encyclopedic treatment for reasons other than its simple procedural posture, I need not to recite here—that I believe all USSC cases to be notable), but this one, in view of its broader precedential effect, surely is. Joe 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a landmark decision from a major Human Rights tribunal. If nothing else, it is notable for the views expressed on the US legal system ("expose him to a real risk of torture"). I have a copy of the full judgement (you can see it here [[1]]. I have linked this in the article and will use it to improve the article when I get time. Emeraude (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It is indeed a landmark decision in the world of international law, and has been called such here (where it's called "the leading case on extradition and human rights"), and here (warning, big pdf that calls it "one of the most celebrated cases in the death penalty arena"). Imagine - the tribunal basically said that simply being on death row in the U.S. (not capital punishment itself) may be enough to violate human rights. If you're at all familiar with the area, notability is a no brainer. To get an idea, look at the hits from Google Scholar here These are scholarly articles and books, many of them appearing in publications with editoralial or peer review boards, that are either about the case or cite it. This article certainly can be given serious encyclopedic treatment. Xymmax (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the equivalent of a Supreme Court case in the U.S., no? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it's even more important than that. The US Supreme Court only has national jurisdiction. The ECHR is an international tribunal that has juridisction over and above the supreme courts of its member statess. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If it resulted in a major legislation change then it's a notable case presumably.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The case is all over Google News and Scholar. What is the criteria for legal notability if this is considered a non-notable case? --Amaltheus (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is one of the key Strasbourg rulings over the past 40 years, and interesting from a European perspective as a damning indictment of the US use of the death penalty practices. Yes, the article may not be fantastically written, but it is a start. Ravenseft (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep no credible reason for deletion has even been suggested. The nom's statement "non-notable" is patently erroneous, given the sources cited in the article itself; and "badly written," even if true (which isn't obvious to me), isn't a suitable reason for deletion. --Russ (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Astonishing nominiation - the article may be poorly written, but that has never been a reason for deletion. Case is still an extremely important judicial precedent in European human rights law. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The case has been cited in 347 law review articles on westlaw.com. It has also been cited in the 8th and 9th Circuits as a basis for an 8th amendment challenge to lengthy confinement awaiting execution. Supreme Court justice Breyer has cited this case in support of his position that he would grant certiorari in these circumstances. There are numerous independent articles that describe this case on the internet, which would satisfy the criteria for notable articles under wikipedia guidelines. Better care in the nomination process would be appreciated. The recent expansion of the article makes this nomination moot. Comment was left on the nominator's talk page. Legis Nuntius (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly notable in law. Once again, if people are not familiar with the field, why do they submit articles for deletion? Why not try to get familiar with the field, or humbly stay out of the issue? or tag the article "notability not asserted" or whatever? --Lquilter (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (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.