Talk:Landmark Education litigation

Proposed merge with Landmark Worldwide
there is not enough content at the litigation article and this issue is important to understanding Landmark Worldwide. Also, the litigation article uses an outdated name for Landmark in the title Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the supposed merger. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Quite a few of the court cases have been blanked from this page, and although some may be reinstated with better sources, at this point it is sketchy. &bull; Astynax talk 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Of the two cases shown here, one is already in the target article. The other case could likely be worked into the prose in a neutral manner. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as I have no real objections to the move, but think that maybe the existing content could be supplemented and retitled to allow for a Criticism of Landmark Education article, which could discuss not only the lawsuits but the positive and negative academic and outsider views of the organization under its various names since it was first established. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At some point that might be an option if other material is added (and there is much material from reliable sources that should be added), but presently the article is very short and as I pointed out elsewhere, even if all the content of all the Landmark-related articles were merged without deleting anything, the resulting 17.7 kB article would still fall very far short of WP:LENGTH guidelines. &bull; Astynax talk 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)