Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene's Flowers lawsuit


 * 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   redirect to Bob Ferguson (politician). J04n(talk page) 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Arlene's Flowers lawsuit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. A yet to be filed discrimination case that happens to have hit the news recently. Funny Pika! 12:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Since the lawsuit hasn't been filed, it does not yet exist. That which does not exist cannot be notable. HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to this website the lawsuit has already been filed, although I do think that it's a little premature to assume that this court case will achieve notability. Sadly enough, this isn't the only such instance of a person refusing service due to some bias against a person (sexuality, gender, ethnicity, etc) and while many do get coverage, most never reach the level of notability needed to warrant an article. I'll try to do a cleanup, but I'm leaning towards delete or userfication if anyone wants to do it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleaning and I'm still somewhat undecided. This is a pretty recent thing. The news really only picked up on this around the 10th and while there have been some coverage, it hasn't been so overwhelming that I'd say that I'd guarantee that this would continue to be in the public eye and gain coverage. It has the potential to be big, which is why I'm hesitating and will probably wait to see if there is any coverage further in the AfD time period. I do see a potential compromise though- since one of the lawsuits has been filed by Bob Ferguson, I think it'd be worthwhile to create a subsection in his article and redirect there if there isn't enough coverage once the AfD ends. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant amount of secondary source coverage from multiple different WP:RS references that all satisfy WP:V and are non-local in nature. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, filed lawsuits are not really notable in and of themselves. People file lawsuits all the time about a wide variety of things. Often times, these lawsuits are found to be frivolous. To say that this case has brought "worldwide" attention is, I think, a misnomer. The articles appearing around the world, and, in fact, even just across America are simply selected copies of news stories that are local to Washington state. If this gets to the level of court proceedings, then an article might be more justified, but only if we see a wider variety of non-Washington-based news. JayHubie (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bob_Ferguson_(politician). This has definite potential to become a notable lawsuit. I'd waited because I was hoping that it'd gain more coverage. Is it there right now? Not really. The lawsuit got a reasonably large amount of media attention, but it's died down fairly quickly. Until this goes to court, this is probably best summarized in Ferguson's article since he was the one who initially filed the lawsuit. I do see where a senator is trying to pass a bill that would allow for people to refuse service based on their "religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience", although I'll be completely blunt in that I doubt very, very seriously that something like that would ever get passed. (Or at least I hope it won't.) In any case, there are multiple things that show that this has the potential to become notable in its own right. It's just not there yet and this is just slightly WP:TOOSOON to really claim notability right now. I say that we redirect with the history for now and just watch the proceedings. If/when it becomes notable, we can always un-redirect it and flesh it out some more with the newest proceedings. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I would normally not say keep, or the basis of it being premature, but it has been reported nationally and by Reuters, and the Seattle Times a said it "will undoubtedly become a cause celebre for opponents seeking to highlight what they refer to as the negative consequences of legalizing gay marriage."  That quote justifies having the article.  DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Tokyogirl79. It's definitely notable based on the coverage I'm finding, but the subject of the article, namely, the lawsuit (or lawsuits: there seems to be two), has not materialized as yet. Wikipedia is not a newspaper: this incident just has not developed enough to merit a stand-alone article. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Incubate At the risk of trying to predict the future, it seems this lawsuit will eventually become notable enough for its own article, but as others have already said, isn't at the moment. Transcendence (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2013 (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.