The result was keep all. While the arguments for deleting the content are persuasive, so too are the arguments that these lists should be kept and/or moved to Wikisource. Although there is no firm consensus as to what exactly should be done with the content, there seems to be a consensus that it should not be deleted, and so I am closing the discussion as a keep for the time being. Any transwikiing of content can be handled through normal processes. -- jonny- m t 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This is the first of a series of articles that are lists of court cases. By WP:NOT, this seems to be a mirror of information found here. Most of the articles are only redlinks too. justinfr ( talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello,
I have gotten notice that the pages referring to the Federal Reporter, Second Series that OpenJurist is adding have been nominated for deletion. These information on these pages do not exist on Wikipedia and are of the same style as the US Supreme Court Case lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
I would argue that these cases add value to Wikipedia. They are cases that provide incite into the laws of the United States just as USSC cases do. OpenJurist has been instructed that members of Wikipedia have been wanting to add Federal Reporter cases to Wikipedia for some time. We are fulfilling that mission.
Furthermore, as to the cases existing on other sources, that is also true US Supreme Court Cases that exist on Findlaw as well as on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the fact that many of these cases are redlined only goes to the fact that there is a lot of information that needs to be added to Wikipedia, not to the fact that it is not valuable information.
(I was not sure where to respond, so I have done so here and the discussion page.)
Openjurist ( talk) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello andy,
I noticed that on:
You mentioned that:
"Delete - this is just a massive series of redlinks, contra to WP policy at WP:NOT. The information is readily available elsewhere. There is already a Federal Reporter article which is more than enough to do the job. andy (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"
However if you visit any of the US Supreme Court Opinion pages they are also a massive collection of Red links until someone writes articles for them.
Here are some of the USSC pages I chose at random: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_200
Furthermore, I have discussed this concept with MZMcBride and this work that I am contributing to Wikipedia has been on her to do list:
"It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates." http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Openjurist&redirect=no
I have access to the resources to create these pages and so I decided to do it.
They would remain redlinks until people know that they are here and have an opportunity to add more information on them, just like the USSC cases.
Please consider what I have written. We are trying to add value to the community by giving people access to these important US Appeals Court Cases.
Openjurist ( talk) 00:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Additionally...
The page you refer to as already having this information "readily available elsewhere":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reporter
Even states:
"The Federal Reporter, including its supplementary material, is also available on CD-ROM compilations, and on West's online legal database, Westlaw. Because individual court cases are identified by case citations that consist of printed page and volume numbers, the electronic text of the opinions incorporates the page numbers of the printed volumes with "star pagination" formatting—the numbers are boldfaced within brackets and with asterisks prepended (i.e., [*4]) to stand out from the rest of the text.
Though West has copyright over its original headnotes and keynotes, the opinions themselves are public domain and accordingly may be found in other sources, chiefly Lexis, Westlaw's competitor. Lexis also copies the star paginated Federal Reporter numbering in their text of the opinions to allow for proper citation, a practice that was the subject of an unsuccessful copyright lawsuit by West against the parent company of Lexis.[4]"
We are providing this information to the public online - not on a CD-ROM or through pay access to Westlaw or Lexis. We are working toward open access to case law. And we are hoping that Wikipedia would like to play a part in this open access.
Sincerely,
Openjurist ( talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
By the way - we have added the page that gives access to all of the pages *just like for the USSC cases*:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
Sincerely,
Openjurist ( talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete all "Delicious"? "New information"? It's nothing more than a bracketed table of contents from a 1949 volume of the Federal Reporter that's been sitting in law libraries for decades. No offense intended to Openjurist or Mboverload, but the two of you have bitten off more than you can chew. I voted to delete the Supreme Court project as well, for the same reasons. Not surprisingly, that attempt to reserve an article for each decision ever rendered by the United States Supreme Court has resulted in a few articles on cases that people are interested in, and lots of red-links for cases about which an article will probably never be written. It's easy to take a table of contents and put double brackets on each case for future articles, but you'll find that you don't have the time to do, pardon the pun, justice to the project. It's easy to slap one of these up, but I'll bet a $200 contribution to the Wikimedia foundation that both of you will give up on the project before the end of the year, and then you'll leave behind the mess of something started but never to be finished.
Mandsford (
talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep all. While the arguments for deleting the content are persuasive, so too are the arguments that these lists should be kept and/or moved to Wikisource. Although there is no firm consensus as to what exactly should be done with the content, there seems to be a consensus that it should not be deleted, and so I am closing the discussion as a keep for the time being. Any transwikiing of content can be handled through normal processes. -- jonny- m t 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This is the first of a series of articles that are lists of court cases. By WP:NOT, this seems to be a mirror of information found here. Most of the articles are only redlinks too. justinfr ( talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello,
I have gotten notice that the pages referring to the Federal Reporter, Second Series that OpenJurist is adding have been nominated for deletion. These information on these pages do not exist on Wikipedia and are of the same style as the US Supreme Court Case lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
I would argue that these cases add value to Wikipedia. They are cases that provide incite into the laws of the United States just as USSC cases do. OpenJurist has been instructed that members of Wikipedia have been wanting to add Federal Reporter cases to Wikipedia for some time. We are fulfilling that mission.
Furthermore, as to the cases existing on other sources, that is also true US Supreme Court Cases that exist on Findlaw as well as on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the fact that many of these cases are redlined only goes to the fact that there is a lot of information that needs to be added to Wikipedia, not to the fact that it is not valuable information.
(I was not sure where to respond, so I have done so here and the discussion page.)
Openjurist ( talk) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello andy,
I noticed that on:
You mentioned that:
"Delete - this is just a massive series of redlinks, contra to WP policy at WP:NOT. The information is readily available elsewhere. There is already a Federal Reporter article which is more than enough to do the job. andy (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"
However if you visit any of the US Supreme Court Opinion pages they are also a massive collection of Red links until someone writes articles for them.
Here are some of the USSC pages I chose at random: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_200
Furthermore, I have discussed this concept with MZMcBride and this work that I am contributing to Wikipedia has been on her to do list:
"It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates." http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Openjurist&redirect=no
I have access to the resources to create these pages and so I decided to do it.
They would remain redlinks until people know that they are here and have an opportunity to add more information on them, just like the USSC cases.
Please consider what I have written. We are trying to add value to the community by giving people access to these important US Appeals Court Cases.
Openjurist ( talk) 00:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Additionally...
The page you refer to as already having this information "readily available elsewhere":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reporter
Even states:
"The Federal Reporter, including its supplementary material, is also available on CD-ROM compilations, and on West's online legal database, Westlaw. Because individual court cases are identified by case citations that consist of printed page and volume numbers, the electronic text of the opinions incorporates the page numbers of the printed volumes with "star pagination" formatting—the numbers are boldfaced within brackets and with asterisks prepended (i.e., [*4]) to stand out from the rest of the text.
Though West has copyright over its original headnotes and keynotes, the opinions themselves are public domain and accordingly may be found in other sources, chiefly Lexis, Westlaw's competitor. Lexis also copies the star paginated Federal Reporter numbering in their text of the opinions to allow for proper citation, a practice that was the subject of an unsuccessful copyright lawsuit by West against the parent company of Lexis.[4]"
We are providing this information to the public online - not on a CD-ROM or through pay access to Westlaw or Lexis. We are working toward open access to case law. And we are hoping that Wikipedia would like to play a part in this open access.
Sincerely,
Openjurist ( talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
By the way - we have added the page that gives access to all of the pages *just like for the USSC cases*:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
Sincerely,
Openjurist ( talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete all "Delicious"? "New information"? It's nothing more than a bracketed table of contents from a 1949 volume of the Federal Reporter that's been sitting in law libraries for decades. No offense intended to Openjurist or Mboverload, but the two of you have bitten off more than you can chew. I voted to delete the Supreme Court project as well, for the same reasons. Not surprisingly, that attempt to reserve an article for each decision ever rendered by the United States Supreme Court has resulted in a few articles on cases that people are interested in, and lots of red-links for cases about which an article will probably never be written. It's easy to take a table of contents and put double brackets on each case for future articles, but you'll find that you don't have the time to do, pardon the pun, justice to the project. It's easy to slap one of these up, but I'll bet a $200 contribution to the Wikimedia foundation that both of you will give up on the project before the end of the year, and then you'll leave behind the mess of something started but never to be finished.
Mandsford (
talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
reply