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. One two three... 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A court case, but no claims of any reason it is notable. Not all court cases are notable, only those that act as a precedence. There are millions upon millions of court cases, 98% of which do not deserve an article. Wikipedia isn't a collection of court cases, but an encyclopaedia of articles on topics that are notable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable court case; badly written Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Might have potential Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. If you're wondering why these random cases are popping up with the strange formatting and YELLING, look at "What links here" and you get this: Legal Methods (Strauss) which is a textbook outline. It probably needs to be put up for deletion as well but I'll leave that to the legal experts. Drawn Some (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did it myself after the spammer contacted me. Drawn Some (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I hate to be referred to here as a "spammer" :) . I have responded at that page.. To summarize what I said there: I actually concede that the article Legal_Methods_(Strauss) is not notable. So I ask for permission to move the content to my user page. My classmates have found the page useful as a "portal" to the cases that we have been discussing in class. And I inquired with a copyright professor at my law school, who wrote back in an email, "[displaying the TOC in this fashion] comes down to a fair use question; though on balance, because it is so clearly educational and non-commercial, I highly doubt it would be infringing." I understand that copyright is a fuzzy area of law; so this doesn't mean he's right; and I have never taken copyright so I can't make my own assessment. But I hope that, unless you get a contrasting second opinion from another copyright expert, that will not be a concern.

• Delete: I can't figure out why it would be notable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (I'm the creator of Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.)
• I must admit: I am guilty of being lazy and inarticulate. "Arma virumque cano" is quite correct that my recent articles have been poorly written, and I have not invested the effort necessary to explain the notability of the content (I will start getting into the habit of developing these articles on my user space before posting them here).
• I know the topic of this article (biting a nail in a pie) must seem silly and childish. Haverly v. United States is another example of a case that is exceedingly mundane-seeming; there, I invested a little effort to show how the law uses really mundane events as a vessel for a highly complex and profound question of law.
• In the present instance, Chysky v. Drake Bros. is part of the 1930s progression of cases that is called the "products liability" synthesis and led to a transformation in how people are liable. These seemingly non-noteworthy cases are important because they were all cited in MacPherson_v_Buick_Motor_Co., which is perhaps one of the most important cases in American law. Justice Cardozo relied on these cases in crafting his argument to determine whether a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser. This created the law of product liability. I will add this statement to the page. Agradman (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Legal briefs are not articles. Wikipedia is not a place for posting your homework. Hairhorn (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Articles on inherently notable cases always have the potential to be improved beyond "legal brief" quality. The question we're asking is, "Is the case notable." JD Caselaw (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a classmate of the article's creator, so I'll take the liberty of posting here what he said on another page. The gist of the argument is that these articles don't just help law students; they help non-law students learn the law (which is important, because the topic has traditionally been inaccessible). JD Caselaw (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "I agree that only important cases should have articles (and that the vast majority of cases don't deserve articles). But I also think that the cases taught in law school almost always meet that threshold of importance. We are only taught cases that either made precedent, or contributed to the creation of a precedent, or else are notable because they summarize the existing law so articulately that they are often referred to as reference texts. I think that under this heuristic for notability, you will see vastly more false positives (cases that seem at first to be not notable because the author of the article wasn't articulate, as happened with me writing Chysky) than false negatives (cases that are not notable, even though they were included in a law student's casebook)."

• Keep - notable court case: first case that acted as precedent for products liability law; from highest court in New York (I know it is weird, but the New York Court of Appeals is our highest court); can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now I'd like to see the article improve so notability is more obvious. But it sounds like we have good-faith contributors who believe it can. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks like it might be notable, but the sources and content there don't show that it is. Delete unless they're improved. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It clearly states the reason for its notability. Cases like this showed an obvious need to change the law, and that change greatly affected everyone.

Chysky is part of a progression of cases that influenced the products liability synthesis that emerged in the 1930s. These cases influenced Judge Cardozo's argument in MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. that a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser, and thus contributed to the modern law of product liability.

It clearly mentions why it is notable at the top of the article. Dream Focus 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that information was missing when the article was AfDed. However there is still not references to support that notability. Is there evidence that it influenced the decision, and the results of this case directly impacted the judge in that later case? Needs to be reliably referenced, not just because the article creator's law professor said it was so. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep 100 Google Scholar hits and over 300 Google Book] hits seems to meet the need for WP:RS with WP:V. Ironically, creator good cite his instructor's book. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment OK, I have added two citations to scholarly sources. (this has been a good experience, I had no idea there was such a high standard for new articles. In the future, I'll try to develop articles on my page until I can establish good citations for them.) - the creator, Agradman (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but clarify. The case certainly claims notability and others have already found sources referring to it. But I'm still left a bit confused by the article. First, please do more to avoid jargon for the non-lawyers among the readership. Second, what was the actual impact of this case on product liability law in the US, or even internationally? To a reasonable person, Chysky was obviously entitled to compensation as the negligence of the company left her with three missing teeth, but the judges ruled to the contrary on a technicality (privity of contract). Was the law was amended and was this ruling discussed? To partly answer my own question:[1]. Some more context in plain English is needed. Fences and windows (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If not kept then alternatively redirect to an appropriate article discussing the evolution of the privity doctrine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The justification for the importance is now obvious. Any case included in standard textbooks as a leading precedent should be included in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2009 (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.