Talk:Ulbricht v. United States

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • Ross Ulbricht Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:Ross Ulbricht

I noticed that user:David Gerard decided to merge this article with Ross Ulbricht article without a discussion. He just baselessly claimed that the merge "stinks of WP:POVFORK" and moved it. (It contains mostly the same content from Ross Ulbricht article verbatim, so I don't even see how this is a valid accusation.) As for notability, this article is, first of all, a pending US Supreme Court case. It is mentioned in an article by the Cato Institute, is naturally in the SCOTUSblog (official US Supreme Court blog) mentioned on the page's references, and is also mentioned in some articles by smaller publishers, such as ccn.com. Because I quite honestly have no stake in the matter, and there is no WP:POVFORK going on as I do not subscribe to either of the ideological camps that have a strong stance on the Ulbricht case, as user:David Gerard petulantly alleges, I do not mind a merge if it is warranted. But I don't see how this doesn't pass WP:GNG. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally zero verifiable, third-party WP:RSes. These are not optional in mainspace articles. Please add them before taking it live again. Note that blog posts or cryptocurrency blogs almost certainly don't confer notability for Supreme Court cases - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources from a Criminal Law text book and from the Cato Institute, as well as the original PDF of the Supreme Court's response to the petition, and the SCOTUSblog link. This should be sufficient for now. And again, regarding your baseless claim about the whole WP:POVFORK issue: I am not in anyway engaged in the crypto community; this case is just legally interesting to me as it relates to Carpenter v. United States. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are not third-party RSes. Cato is a partisan thinktank. The Supreme Court is a primary source. CCN is not a reliable source for notability of cases not yet heard by the Supreme Court.

Please read WP:RS and understand what constitutes a Reliable Source. You need to be able to answer: where are the third-party Reliable Sources for this case's notability? - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it seems to be that if anyone has an agenda, it is you. You seem to be fighting this quite ferociously.

Accoring to WP:RS, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." I supplied one of these, but you want to call it irrelevant because the source is discussing the appellate court case that has since become this pending court case? Irrelevant is a little strong, don't you think, as this is an appeal of the case mentioned in the textbook, which the textbook is already mentioning as significant?

I also read WP:RS and I don't see any mention of blog posts from big institutions such as the US Supreme Court and the Cato Institute as invalid sources that warrant deletion (as you have been doing). - Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm going to withdraw from this discussion. If you need to merge it, then merge you. You'll get no further resistance from me.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]