Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anheuser Busch & Campbell Taggart


 * 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   no consensus, which defaults to keep. The "vote count" was close, but the cases' notability has been prima facie established. However, that is subject to refutation, and these articles, or any of them, may expect to be nominated again within the next few months if not improved. On a procedural note, Shlensky v. Wrigley has been speedied as a copyvio by Orangemike. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Anheuser Busch &amp; Campbell Taggart

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prods. The author originally posted several articles linked to Harvard business school cases, all apparently copyvios of material from Harvard business school. He's now removed what he says is the copyvio material leaving unreferenced essays. Fails WP:VER, WP:OR and WP:NOT - "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter" andy (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - The context of these articles is a little unclear to me, but regardless, or in addition, - Original Research and WP:NOT --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All - material is how-to/homework-esque essays. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All No references to show that these were notable cases, plus analysis looks like OR unless it can be referenced. gnfnrf (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. References for the first case's notability:  . References for the second case's notability:, Angela Schneeman The Law of Corporations and Other Business Organizations ISBN 0766831981 pp274-276, John Adamson Law for Personal and Business Use ISBN 0538440511 p486.  I dare say similar references could be found for the remaining cases, but I feel I have made my point that the nominator has not even considered whether or not these cases are notable, and only looked at the history of the page.  Content issues can be fixed. Deletion is a last resort for those that cannot be. JulesH (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The key issue is that these are presented as textbook articles, not encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not a textbook so it has no place for this kind of thing. andy (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The distinction is a very fine one, particularly when it comes to legal cases. We're talking about a historical event that can have significant influence on the present.  I think it's fair to say that any case that is referenced in textbooks should have an article.  I also believe it's fair to say that it's easier to work from a textbook-style article to a more appropriate one than it is to start from nothing. JulesH (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the distinction isn't a fine one as far as WP is concerned. These articles are completely inappropriate as they stand and the author hasn't fixed them, so unless someone else does so within the next couple of days they should be deleted per NOTHOWTO and other policies. We don't keep bad articles in the hope that they'll somehow get better - we either fix them promptly or delete them. andy (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy you are referring to states:
 * Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
 * This is the only section of the policy in question that I see could be even remotely applicable to (to pick an example) Anheuser Busch &amp; Campbell Taggart. And I don't really see how it applies... what, in that article, is "teach[ing] subject matter" rather than presenting facts about it?  There are no leading questions or problem solutions, etc., so the rest of the policy doesn't apply.  Besides, WP:DELETION says:
 * If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.
 * I see no reason to believe that any problem with this article (and at least most of the others) cannot be solved through editing. Certainly it is possible to have an encyclopedia article on a notable legal case, and this one would certainly seem to fit the bill. JulesH (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with JulesH, there is a fine line between historical events and a textbook-style article, and in my mind Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusiveness versus exclusiveness. Take something like Nucleophilic_substitution, which is probably as text-book a description as you're likely to get (almost straight out of a textbook). I would still prefer to have that page included in Wikipedia than not. Khidhir (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue that these articles are unreferenced and for the most part are presented as opinions, not facts. As they stand they're eminently deletable under several key WP policies such as WP:VER. If you want to keep them, how about fixing them so they don't violate WP policies? andy (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep  The subjects are possible for articles. But the notability has to be shown . HBS uses hundreds of cases, and there needs to be some evidence that these are important and widely used elsewhere. The ones that are law cases should be presented as such, with the interpretive part sourced and presented separately. That they are important law cases has to be shown by other than HBS--leading cases widely quoted are suitable for articles.  The general use of HBS cases is also fit for an article as a major teaching method akin to a textbook, but it needs 3rd party sources. Given the importance of the method, this should not be difficult. DGG (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. At least two of these articles (Shlensky v. Wrigley and Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc.) probably originated in business law readings published by Georgia Tech. It's worth noting that GA Tech has been sued for copyright violations in student reading material, and in fact I notice that Shlensky v. Wrigley is very similar to copyright material on www.audiocasefiles.com/home. andy (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would keep Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc. as a notable case. The other ones, I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.