Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeVake v. Independent School District 656

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 Keep, notability appears to exist given the arguments provided later in the AfD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LeVake v. Independent School District 656

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This case appears to be non-notable. It was in a Minnesota trial court, and was appealed, but both the state and US supreme courts declined to review it. As a state district court case, it sets no precedent; and even the appeal (which is not covered in the article) would likely be precedential only for the slice of Minnesota over which the court of appeals had jurisdiction. (But I'll caveat on this; some states have different rules on precedent, and it's possible Minnesota extends precedent of an intermediate court over the entire state; California does this, for example.)

I PRODded it, but the prod was removed by the creating editor. The bases for removal was that the case was "appealed all the way to Minnesota Supreme Court (where it lost)"; and that "It is covered in several books per searches on books.google.com including Jones's 'Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism' and Moore's 'Evolution in the courtroom'."

In fact, it did not get appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court; that court declined to hear the case. See [1]. It was "appealed" to that court only in the sense that the litigant wanted it to go before the court, but the court said, "we don't even want to hear it" and did not review the merits.

On the two book cites, as to the first, it appears to be a very limited discussion on one page, plus line-item entries in a couple lists. As to the second, it's a three-paragraph summary in a 381-page book. I don't think either one, or the combination of both, pushes this over into notability. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable trivia. WP:NOTNEWS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the books mentioned above, this case has also been discussed in a number of law journals. See, for example:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] On balance, I think this coverage is sufficient to confer notability. If I have some extra time this weekend, I will try to add these sources to the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Casey Luskin, Does Challenging Darwin Create Constitutional Jeopardy - A Comprehensive Survey of Case Law Regarding the Teaching of Biological Origins, 32 Hamline L. Rev. 1, 64 21 (2009)
^ Diane Heckman, One Nation under God: Freedom of Religion in Schools and Extracurricular Athletic Events in the Opening Years of the New Millennium, 28 Whittier L. Rev. 537, ~~624~~ 559 (2006)
^ Supreme Court Review, 31 J.L. & Educ. 221, 223 (2002)
^ Recent Decisions, 30 J.L. & Educ. 631, 651 (2001)

How is it treated and discussed in those references? TJRC (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC: the Luskin article provides four pages of analysis that are specifically devoted to LeVake, and other portions of the Luskin article compare LeVake to other cases. The other three articles include 1/2 to 1-page summaries of the case, though they focus on summary rather than analysis and interpretation. I also found 1/2 page discussion/summary of the case in this article at p. 2, this book at p. 47, this book at p. 112, and this book at p. 28, as well as about two pages of commentary on the case in this book at p. 224. If these sources simply included a brief mention of the case in a footnote or in bullet-point list, then I would likely feel differently, but I think the depth of coverage in these sources substantiates the fact that this case is notable. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per the sources provided above and per the descriptions of the depth of coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1] Casey Luskin, Does Challenging Darwin Create Constitutional Jeopardy - A Comprehensive Survey of Case Law Regarding the Teaching of Biological Origins, 32 Hamline L. Rev. 1, 64 21 (2009)

[2] Diane Heckman, One Nation under God: Freedom of Religion in Schools and Extracurricular Athletic Events in the Opening Years of the New Millennium, 28 Whittier L. Rev. 537, ~~624~~ 559 (2006)

[3] Supreme Court Review, 31 J.L. & Educ. 221, 223 (2002)

[4] Recent Decisions, 30 J.L. & Educ. 631, 651 (2001)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]