The result was keep. The nominator has stated that "a denial of petition is not notable" but has provided no solid reasoning for this, however there are plenty of comments that refute this and demonstrate the notability of the article. The subject has been covered in reliable sources, including those separate from the Supreme Court itself. Perhaps a merge to Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. is something that can be discussed, but there's no consensus here to mandate that decision by AFD, so I'm closing as keep, with a merge possible through discussion. ( non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. is notable. The trial of Leal Garcia at the state level is notable. The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus is not notable, so this Leal Garcia v. Texas article should be deleted or merged into Leal Garcia's article. The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of the petition is not an actual U.S. Supreme Court case. Granting the petition would have granted permission for a U.S. Supreme Court case, so the Court's denial of the petition was the Court's refusal to hear the case. OCNative ( talk) 08:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
It's simply not accurate to dismiss this opinion as nothing but a petition denial, however. First, the Supreme Court included it in its list of opinions for the term, [1], not in its tables of mere orders. [2] Second, it's clearly more substantive than a mere order, which would have contained nothing more than the last paragraph of the Court's opinion here blandly describing what action was taken without explanation ("The applications for stay of execution...are denied...", etc.). The Court issued a four-page opinion discussing the substantive legal issues underlying its decision. We do presume, and rightly so, that Court opinions are notable, because with few exceptions, they will get significant coverage in both mainstream media and specialist law sources.
The "few exceptions" are per curiam opinions, which tend to be shorter like this one, or often look like one-line orders. So the standard procedure is to describe them in mass lists, and Leal Garcia has a section awaiting expansion at 2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (I forgot to create a redirect when I added it there). So given that there is that venue for discussing this Supreme Court opinion, and Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. basically functions as a main article for all of the legal proceedings, a standalone article is not necessary for the Supreme Court opinion, which as properly noted above was just one stage in a lengthy prosecution and post-conviction litigation. But whether the Supreme Court's per curiam opinion only merits discussion in those articles I mentioned above, or also a standalone article, is an editing decision that didn't need to be taken to AFD. In its current state, I think it could easily be merged into the per curiam list, but I don't have an opinion on its expansion potential. postdlf ( talk) 15:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The nominator has stated that "a denial of petition is not notable" but has provided no solid reasoning for this, however there are plenty of comments that refute this and demonstrate the notability of the article. The subject has been covered in reliable sources, including those separate from the Supreme Court itself. Perhaps a merge to Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. is something that can be discussed, but there's no consensus here to mandate that decision by AFD, so I'm closing as keep, with a merge possible through discussion. ( non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. is notable. The trial of Leal Garcia at the state level is notable. The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus is not notable, so this Leal Garcia v. Texas article should be deleted or merged into Leal Garcia's article. The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of the petition is not an actual U.S. Supreme Court case. Granting the petition would have granted permission for a U.S. Supreme Court case, so the Court's denial of the petition was the Court's refusal to hear the case. OCNative ( talk) 08:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
It's simply not accurate to dismiss this opinion as nothing but a petition denial, however. First, the Supreme Court included it in its list of opinions for the term, [1], not in its tables of mere orders. [2] Second, it's clearly more substantive than a mere order, which would have contained nothing more than the last paragraph of the Court's opinion here blandly describing what action was taken without explanation ("The applications for stay of execution...are denied...", etc.). The Court issued a four-page opinion discussing the substantive legal issues underlying its decision. We do presume, and rightly so, that Court opinions are notable, because with few exceptions, they will get significant coverage in both mainstream media and specialist law sources.
The "few exceptions" are per curiam opinions, which tend to be shorter like this one, or often look like one-line orders. So the standard procedure is to describe them in mass lists, and Leal Garcia has a section awaiting expansion at 2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (I forgot to create a redirect when I added it there). So given that there is that venue for discussing this Supreme Court opinion, and Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. basically functions as a main article for all of the legal proceedings, a standalone article is not necessary for the Supreme Court opinion, which as properly noted above was just one stage in a lengthy prosecution and post-conviction litigation. But whether the Supreme Court's per curiam opinion only merits discussion in those articles I mentioned above, or also a standalone article, is an editing decision that didn't need to be taken to AFD. In its current state, I think it could easily be merged into the per curiam list, but I don't have an opinion on its expansion potential. postdlf ( talk) 15:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply