Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case no. 16CV300


 * 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. Routine class-action case, plus WP:COI issues, as the creator of the article in the plaintiff in the case. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I didn't immediately realize that this had been moved to Educational Service Workers before the AfD was complete. I've gone ahead and deleted that page as well.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Case no. 16CV300

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Court case that has petititoned for review at a higher court - which is yet to say if it will accept it. No indication of wide significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. noq (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Noq, thank you for allowing the opportunity to present the significance of these issues. This class action is very important to a large number of unemployed people in Georgia. Here in Georgia, if GDOL suspects you are connected to education in any way, you are automatically denied UI! When GDOL did this in 2012 with a rule change, he was forced to pay back $8M to more than 30,000 people! That's a lot of money! And a lot of people! But in 2015 the law was changed to do the same thing. Other states are looking on at the precedent and this issue has nationwide significance! If Georgia gets away with the unconstitutional denial of UI, other states will try the same thing. I have done a LOT of research and I have included references on my page which everyone can use to inform themselves and understand the situation. Many people say it's too complicated for them to understand, so just ask me if you have any more questions. Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I would also like to point out other similar articles such as the one on Trump University (sued because the students got neither Trump nor a University). I come to wikipedia all the time to research court cases. One reason Wikipedia enjoys it's popularity is because it contains so much great information! My goal is not to undo that by diluting your great product! I want to add an article of value and I believe I have done so according to WP guidelines. In terms of WP:NOTNEWS, I have to disagree that this would NOT better qualify as news. It is an encyclopedic article examining an issue of great importance to over 30,000 people in Georgia. A lot of money is involved, especially if other states adopt these laws. What do you think? Is it significant to you? signed rebekah black — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out the multiple valid sources that find this topic significant: The Patch (Athens, GA newspaper), ReadingRoom.law.gsu.edu, workforcesecurity.doleta.gov, senatepress.net. I could add more references if you would like? I'd like to mention that Congress Rep. John Lewis letter to Butler is part of the evidence. Further, I want to clear up the fact that the court HAS accepted the case. It is filed and pending a decision. Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Noq. In light of the validated many 3rd party sources finding this case significant, could you please remove the nomination for deletion or let me know how I could further add value to this article. Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources given, are to peachcourt.comm that requires a login to read - I cannot comment on what is hidden behind the login, the 3 references to an a server without a name is not a WP:reliable source - I cannot associate it with anyone that could be reliable, the other references predate the legislation that this case is about - so cannot be used to establish this case as notable. Most court cases are known by the the names of the litigants involved rather than a court assigned number which makes searching for coverage hard to do - you might want to put that in the article as it would help anyone reviewing this try to find significant coverage in reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Shawn in Montreal! Welcome to the world of law in Georgia! :)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay I took out the 'server without a name".. gone. Also, the peachcourt.com has a free and easy login. Please register for a login as that is the way to access cases through court.


 * Looking at the site, it seems that peachcourt just lists all cases - it does not help to establish notability, merely existence. Therefore, you have no relevant sources at all. noq (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's existance is relevant. but i will provide more references tomorrow. Rebekahalnablack

In terms of references that "pre-date" these issues, I beg you to reconsider. These issues are the same, first it was the rules now it is the legislation. This is all part of the same elephant, I have to show you the legs and the tail and the face to show the whole picture. Also I can add current references! Please just give me till tomorrow! Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Totally run-of-the-mill civil court case. Not in a precedent-setting court, no judicial decision rendered. Cases like this are a dime a dozen, and there's no reason to think this one is any more notable than any other. agt x  22:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * HI Agtx, thanks for your comment. Unfortuneatley, many people give up on the 3rd appeal. The courthouse handling this case stated they only get 1 if that kind of case like this per year. Please understand it is precedent -setting in that the many other states are looking on to see if they can get away with this too. User talk:Rebekahalnablack


 * Alright, maybe this article belongs under Wikileaks lol. Finding tons of reliable 3rd party sources before the scandal breaks is a lot more challenging than writing it up after the fact. Maybe this article is premature and I leave it to your decision. User talk:Rebekahalnablack Thank you! —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:MILL, no indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * unless you were denied ui due to being a ESW and didn't know why! this website explains why if you understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A class action involving more than 30,000 people is not wp:Mill.   Ottawahitech (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * A previous case involved 30,000 people - I don't see anything here showing this case involves that many. I don't even see who the primary litigants are. noq (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just registered on the PeachCourt site so I can look at some of the details. It appears that the plaintiff is the creator of the article and there does not appear to be any press coverage - very strange for a large class action case. 16:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi yes, I am the creator and plaintiff. There was no coverage of Trump University class action until Trump settled for $25M. Every class action has to start somewhere. There is plenty of press coverage from the last 3 years because this issue has been brewing since then. Please click on some of the links in the article to see press coverages since 2012. By the way, I have shared this wikipedia article with the lawyers for the opposing side, their contacts found under PeachCourt. It doesn't appear the opposing side wishes to participate in the wiki... unless u guys are them! ;) Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already seen the references to previous cases, and I dismissed them as not relevant to the notability of THIS particular case. Wikipedia is NOT a place for you to pursue your case and requires WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Case listings are not significant coverage - where is the coverage of THIS case? I did ask previously for you to state the litigants involved but you did not do so - hiding your WP:conflict of interest until it was pointed out. Please do not use Wikipedia as a WP:soapbox. noq (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Lol, I do apologize for the misunderstanding. I never attempted to hide anything. I use my full real name Rebekah Alna Black. Who are you Noq? Are you a lawyer specializing in UI in Georgia, USA? Please don't hide behind a fake name and condemn an issue you don't understand. Anyone is welcome to contribute to this article. I have asked lawyers from the opposing side, and you are welcome to contact them, too. Their contact is under peachcourt. I repeat that the news sources are relevant to this case. This issue has been a brewing here in Georgia and is very relevant to those denied UI. I am beginning to suspect you are a lawyer from the other side hiding under a fake name. Please tell us who you are. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have still not provided any reliable sources to THIS case - the references from before the legislation that this case is about cannot be used to establish this case as notable. And a brief look at my edit history should be enough to show that I am not part of the defence in this case - indeed I cannot think why they would bother with this article as it will not have any bearing on the court case. You may be using your real name but this has never been mentioned in the article as being YOUR case.  Please read up WP:notability, WP:significant coverage and WP:reliable sources as well as the WP:COI article that you have already been pointed at. Wikipedia is not meant as a means of publicising your case - use the local media in Georgia for that.  You have repeatedly claimed that the sources exist but you seem very reticent to actually provide any. noq (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are good points. Thanks for pointing me towards those links and I think I understand your position. However, I still stand behind the fact that those resources refer to this case as in what is going on for UI in Georgia. My intent is to provide information on the UI situation in Georgia for educational service workers that may come to wikipedia to understand why they were denied. It is not to make money lol or win the case which could take years or advertise news. If you feel it would be more appropriate to wait until someone else writes the wp article in 5 years, I understand and support that decision. However, please consider writing an article to explain to the thousands of affected Georgians why you pulled the content down. Will this discussion at least remain for them to navigate by? The content I have posted is neutral and can be verified, but please do as you will, and I support WP best practices! Rebekahalnablack (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * One last thing :p I just wanted to clarify the "cases" are the same in that the people involved are the same, the memos sent are the same, the rules and laws involved are the same, the people places and things are all the same! Are you saying this should Just be an article about the 2012-2013 incident? Because I like your points and maybe this should be an article on the past instead of the present? Please let me know if these changes sound good, we could call the article Educational Service Workers or something? Rebekahalnablack (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh ya!!! This is looking much better! Hi five noq! We make a great team.. thanks so much for the help. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And still you miss the point. Your rename and edit of the article looks to have changed it into a WP:COAT. You start with an obvious dictionary definition and then spend the rest of the article discussing the history of a dispute. noq (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, it is not a dictionary definition, it is a legal definition, as defined under Georgia law. And the law has history to it! In this article, what is the coat and what is the hook? What is the rack? Rebekahalnablack (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article does not indicate how this court case is notable per WP:GNG, that is, which reliable sources such as national news organizations have given it substantial (not only passing) coverage.  Sandstein   18:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What we really need is a series on this law. Educational Service Contractors being the next article.. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Sandstein.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:39, 30 December 2016 (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.