Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer Literary Agency


 * 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   delete. causa sui (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer Literary Agency

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article started as a means of attacking someone involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia. It is not about the literary agency at all, save for the involvement with lawsuits against the WMF. Given that the company name incorporates the name of a living person, we should be mindful of the possible effects of retaining this article. Now that time has passed, the desire to punish may have waned (and the case itself is documented in History of Wikipedia).

My primary motivation for nominating the article for discussion now was the recent addition of a link to the legal documents on Wikisource. If this is a notable case (outside the echo chamber of Wikipedia), then the case should have an article, not the company named after an individual. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The community has previously deleted an article on the eponymous head of the agency. Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination).   Will Beback    talk    19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems like a WP:COATRACK for the Wikipedia-related section. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would assume this is going to be WP:OFFICE-spiked in light of the fate of the articles on Bauer. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: I suggest that you consider the comments above as defacto "delete" votes. I am unsure why editors are reluctant to express an opinion about keeping or deleting this particular article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - (1) there is no assertion of notability; (2) it's navel-gazing in-house bunk. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnotable entity. One lawsuit does not make notability. Naval-gazing. Basically a work-around of the deletion of the article on the person Barbara Baur, which since that has apparently been deleted for good reason, and she doesn't want an article -- she sued us for chrissakes -- is not very kind. I consider this basically a BLP issue. It should go. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2011 (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.