Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headnote

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; no valid deletion rationale has been presented. As noted, being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. All other comments supported keeping the article. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headnote

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

This has been a stub for a while Lomrjyo (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a stub for a while is not a valid ground for deletion. As noted in response to the prior PROD, although short, it goes beyond a dicdef, and can grow further. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like TJRC said being a stub isn't a valid reason for deletion, it may take a while. We have Prizewinner and it was a stub for a long time and it was never mentioned to be deleted as far as I know. Felicia (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is valid legal stub with potential of expansion once there are editors interested in that. Notability is not absolutely measured by article's state, though bad state of article may indicate something is amiss. See WP:NEXIST, otherwise we would have to delete hundred of thousands articles that have been in stub state for several years. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Headnotes are a part of legal research tools. A quick WP:BEFORE style search shows they are covered in reliable sources like books [1], [2]. It looks like a notable topic per WP:GNG and the article itself has no major problems, hence keep. --Mark viking (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and extract additional info from here: [[3]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons above. This article is in need of improvement, not deletion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've often thought that there might be some synergy in addressing two interrelated pretty sparse articles that each deserve more content, Headnote and Syllabus (legal). In some sense, they overlap; a syllabus in a legal opinion is, in some cases, a collection of headnotes. I'm not quite to he point where I would suggest they be merged, but I'm throwing that out there in case anyone sees a way to improve both with a common effort.

I know the almost invariable rule is that the syllabus/headnotes may not themselves be cited as precedent (as noted in United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.). However, I know it was once (when I started my legal career some 25 years ago) the rule of the Ohio Supreme Court exactly the opposite: the syllabus was an official syllabus prepared by court staff and approved by the court; and set out exactly what the court deemed to be its holding. If a point of law was not in the syllabus, it could not be relied on as precedent. Sometime in the last quarter-century, they changed to the usual practice, but it would be worth noting, especially if there are other jurisdictions that have or had a similar practice. TJRC (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2018 (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.