Talk:LeVake v. Independent School District 656

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 12, 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Prod Removed[edit]

To copy my edit comment:

This case was, contrary to the prop note, appealed all the way to Minnesota Supreme Court (where it lost). 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'. I believe that, per WP:NEXIST it meets notability.

Of course it's citations should be updated to indicate that fact, but that is not grounds for deletion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a cite handy for the Minnesota Supreme Court case? If not, I'll see if I can find it. A trial-level case really is not all that notable, but if it went to the state Supreme Court, I would be more inclined to agree o notability. If I have the Minn. SCt opinion, I can update this accordingly. TJRC (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. According to this, it did not go to the the state Supreme Court: "The Minnesota Supreme Court refused to review LeVake's case on July 24, and the United States Supreme Court followed suit on January 27, 2002." TJRC (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]