Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blankmeyer v. Stonehill College, Inc.


 * 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   speedy delete (G5) – creation by a sock puppet of banned user User:Grundle2600 in violation of ban. --MuZemike 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Blankmeyer v. Stonehill College, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Thousands of lawsuits are filed in the United States every day. A few articles in domestic and international press do not make this notable. By analogy, news stories about a cat falling in the well might also generate some media coverage but are not Wikipedia-worthy. Reconsider an article only if a noteworthy court decision ensues. Anomalocaris (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a very interesting case, as it combines the issues of religion, sex, disability law, privacy, and contractual obligation. Given that Catholic schools advertise themselves as offering students a certain kind of campus life, this issue is of interest to a huge number of people. And it's not just Canada and the U.K. media that are cited in the article - Italy and even Pakistan's media are cited as well. This is much more than a few news articles. This case is a big deal, and is highly notable. Friendly Freeper (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This case has attained worldwide notability at the same time as, and probably to some extent in symbiosis with, the controversies associated with government-mandated insurance coverage of birth control by Roman Catholic employers and Rush Limbaugh's calling a Georgetown University (also a Roman Catholic institution) student a slut after her testimony on Capitol Hill supporting the coverage. Rammer (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, has received a good deal of secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2012 (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.