Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen 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   no consensus to delete. PeterSymonds (talk)  13:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit

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

Badly sourced, fails notability, huge BLP issues, in short if we can find any reliable info it should be merged into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has been the target of an attempt to gut and leave it open to an AfD. It seems two sockpuppets of the same banned user (User:MyVeryEducatedMother and User:TuppenceABag) have been busy removing material that is also being removed in the real-world (as noted by Rich Johnston over at Comic Book Resources ). It is unclear if this is a coordinated effort but the timing seems curious. I have been discussing the issue of sourcing with ntnon but it might take longer than the length of this AfD to track down resources and I'd not like to see this article get deleted in the meantime - surely that would be handing a victory to those attempting to use underhand means to destroy an article? (Emperor (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Comment Victory? Destroy? Curious timing? I don't see the appropriateness of any of these phrases. This is a simple afd of an article that is highly controversial, because of BLP and the obvious legal issues, and poorly sourced, so its, IMO, a good candidate for afd. Please don't imply it was afd'd for ulterior motives as that would be assuming bad faith on my part. Having said the which, I am certainly aware of the issues involved,a nd obvioulsy do not support the use of controversial socks by Col Scott. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My comments were directed to the activities of the sock puppets, not yourself. The AfD was almost inevitable given the state the article was left in, which is why I had been working to try and address the sourcing issues (given that a lot of the good sources are outside my area of expertise) before someone AfDed it (and if it wasn't you then it would have been someone else, and sooner rather than later). (Emperor (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Thanks for clarifying that. I will add that I have seen poor articles transformed into good ones by an afd, which to some extent could be said to either make or break an article, and especially one such as this. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed and it does need it. As the finding of the sources is out of my area of expertise I'm also hoping that the extra attention catches the eye of someone more experienced in finding legal information. As lawyers were involved there must be a paper trail and there must be editors around here who know where to look. Even if this survives this AfD, without those sources will have to be trimmed back further which leave it of a size were it'd probably be best merging to the film article. Whichever way it falls out something needs doing. (Emperor (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
 * OK I have only just got up to speed on the User:ColScott situation (and my comments above should be read in that light as I was unaware of the connections between the various parties, showing that there was no coincidence between the removal of comments elsewhere and the double sock puppet editing of the entry) but I am unsure what bearing this has on the AfD (and by extension the long-term viability of the information as a standalone article), whether it becomes a strong keep pending the finding of further sources to replace those removed (as we can't let people game the system) or if we just let it go (as it is going to be a "scab" that is going to be picked at for the foreseeable future). (Emperor (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —Emperor (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are sourcing issues though. Both the allegations and the rebuttals section need sourcing.  Who is making these allegations and who is rebutting them, us? I've added in some sourcing for removed material, but I think this is better covered in the film article and the Alan Moore article. To me it looks like there was a lawsuit and it was settled. I'm no expert, but I think that's common practise in America.  Hiding T 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not really clear on ColScott or what their issue is, either but a lot of the edits the alleged socks have made look to be in keeping with policy. Hiding T 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not surprising. The socks got blocked for evading the original block. Col often edits in a high quality way with a good knowledge of polices such as BLP, RS etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the Refimprove tag is enough. Must be a slow day for the deletionists. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. To summarize the lawsuit in the main article on the movie is proper, but this daughter article can present more information, at a level of detail that would be clutter in the main article.  The current setup is consistent with Summary style.  This article has proper sourcing for indications that this lawsuit was of some interest and importance, establishing its notability. JamesMLane t c 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- the only sources are message boards. Article has no citations and no back up.  Deserves at best one paragraph mention in main article.  One of the worst articles I have ever seen.PersecutionComplex (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to explain your assertion that the only sources are message boards? Seems to conflict with the evidence, for example the New York Times and the BBC. Hiding T 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only sources are message boards and pieces in the NY Times that don't actually support what is quoted. Keep Hiding. PersecutionComplex (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To my mind the NY Times certainly supports the statements made using it as a source. The piece states "When the case was settled out of court, Mr. Moore took it as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself." I believe this wholly supports the statement within the article that the case was ultimately settled out-of-court, a decision which Moore, according to the New York Times "took ... as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself." Why do you not agree? Hiding T 16:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that clarifies that it is basically a plagiarized line and should be deleted or reworked- in any case GREAT JOB cleaning the article up- and now as it is it should DEFINITELY be deleted.PersecutionComplex (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the BLP issues, it probably was wise that an exact quote was used—as the quotation marks noted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not plagiarism when you quote and cite a source. It is plaigarism when you seek to pass off someone else's work as your own.  This is not something I am seeking to do, as evinced through citation and quotation. Hiding T 16:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but WP is not just a news clipping service and that is all this article is. And you keep trying to add gossip sites as a source. PEOPLE is not a WP sourcePersecutionComplex (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the nature of PEOPLE, I apologise for adding it to the article, but I do not keep trying to add it to the article, I have added it once, to my knowledge. I have replaced it with a quotation from the BBC. Whether this article should be kept or not is for editorial consensus generated at this debate.  While it is here it should not contain speculation, original research or the like, but should be edited in keeping with our editing policy. Hiding T 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * and you are doing a helluva job in doing so.PersecutionComplex (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, based on where we have the article now I'd simply merge it into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film), but given we have an afd underway we can't as yet do that. I think if we did that we could make even more material redundant. Hiding T 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, the Shane West quote likely is redundant to this article. But both this article, by which I mean the facts regarding the lawsuit, and that quote are relevant to the film article. I'd suggest they both belong there. Hiding T 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree. No one seems to care about this AfD though.PersecutionComplex (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it needs listing on law project or film project pages. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * well there is really nothing left of it and should be amalgamated into the main article.IMO.PersecutionComplex (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the afd should be listed elsewhere. Obviously, as the nominator, I agree with you about what to do with this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the film del sort and created a law del sort which I will advertise at WikiProject Law. Hope that helps. Hiding T 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * People is a superficial celebrity-oriented magazine, but something like this (a dispute involving celebrities) is within its beat. It's not the kind of rag that publishes stories about three-headed children or encounters with space aliens.  The linked story is chiefly a summary of the allegations of the lawsuit, and I'd consider it a reliable source in that context. JamesMLane t c 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * first off, this week the front page of People has fotos it paid for of Ashlee Simpson's wedding. It is a tabloid rag and an unsuitable source.  Second this is not a dispute among celebrities- this is one guy so not notable he doesn't get an article and a fringe/cult old director suing a studio.  No celebrities are involved at all.  Third, see below- this case is meaningless in law.PersecutionComplex (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't whether People is in line for a Pulitzer, or whether we approve of its journalistic methods. The issue is whether it's reliable -- whether the statements in it are likely to be true.  Paid-for pics are a bad example because we couldn't use them, but suppose People reported: "Joe Jones, who catered Simpson's wedding, said that Carol Burnett was there and offered some of her dessert to Henry Kissinger"?  If for some reason that fact were encyclopedic, I'd consider People a reliable source (that Jones actually catered the wedding and actually does say that).  Second, this article is on the entertainment beat where People concentrates.  Third, that the case was settled before generating any published decision that would show up on Westlaw means it set no precedent for other cases, but that's quite different from "meaningless".  It's still meaningful as to its particular subject matter.  See, for example, Le Rêve (painting), an article that discusses a lawsuit settlement without citing any published decision. JamesMLane t c 06:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The Phrase "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" does not exist in American case law. Similarly, the phrases "Martin Poll" and "Larry Cohen" taken together do not exist in American case law per Westlaw.com.  This means that the lawsuit has no lasting significance in American jurisprudence.  Given that this suit would have been filed five years ago, it is either settled or it has been dismissed, but even that court action is not notable.  Unless "Cast of Characters" is also the name of a corporation, it cannot sue anyone or anything, so the name of the article is wrong.  The only notability of the article is that it has to do with a famous movie.  There are thousands of lawsuits out there that do not get their own article, even those worth millions.  It seems proper to merge this article into the movie article.  As far as its legal significance, it has none. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The significance and notability are surely in how it relates to Alan Moore, since the accusation played a large part in his decision to extricate himself utterly from film-adaptations of his work. ntnon (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that can be dealt with at Moore's own article, it simply is not an argument for a separate article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * even based on your original superfluous OR, it actually played only a small part- the major part was Joel Silver's press conferencePersecutionComplex (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True. I should have written "while it's absolutely correct to say that the Silver press conference was the final straw, this instance was clearly the tipping point." Allegations of plagiarism, illegal and immoral conduct involved in the writing of an original work are far more damaging in the short and long term than the suggestion of having read and enjoyed a treatment based on ones original work. But parts of the original article did arguably fall under OR, and most of your initial revisions and clarifications were entirely justified and, indeed, very helpful. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:PersecutionComplex is banned user . Thatcher 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:PersecutionComplex was also contributing helpfully to this debate. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Hiding T 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   —Hiding T 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with the article on LXG. This article as originally created was quite horrible; a section on Moore's moral character?  A section on Impact on LXG cast and crew that says the suit had no impact on the cast (obvious as the suit was not filed until after filming was completed, duh).  It seems to have been an attempt to disparage Alan Moore (and to a lesser extent Don Murphy), although perhaps moving it to its own article was an attempt to protect them from disparagement by others who had added the material to Alan Moore; I really can't say who is at fault here.  The present version of the article--brief, factual and well-sourced, without fanboy speculation or analysis--is appropriate for inclusion in the LXG movie article. Thatcher 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was in no way meant to disparage Mr Moore, and there certainly shouldn't have even been a potential reading that in any way disparaged Mr Murphy. Indeed, the dual purposes of mentioning Murphy at all were, firstly, to quote him on the outcome - he had previously been quite open and informative on this - and secondly to firmly state that there was no possible cause for implying any misconduct on his part - indeed, quite the contrary: as a fan of the source material, it is unlikely that any of the changes which precipitated the lawsuit came from him. The "Impact of Murphy" mentions were absolutely geared to saying "There was no impact on Murphy". The purpose of mentioning Moore's "moral character" was not to disparge it (or him), but to explain that the very existence of the lawsuit DID place a slur on his moral and professional character - as (he belives) did the out-of-court settlement of the case (particularly after his providing a lengthy deposition/defence). The purpose of the lawsuit having a separate page was because it was deemed out of place under "LARRY COHEN," and probably too lengthy/different to slot into "ALAN MOORE" or "LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN." The "Impact on the Cast & Crew" of the lawsuit was certainly slight-to-non-existent, although a high-profile lawsuit (widely reported) naturally attaches itself to the cast involved. However, the shoot itself had significant impact on, (particularly,) Mr Norrington and Sean Connery. Short of trying to conjure a page-heading about "The many and varied difficulties in filming LXG", it seemed not entirely without cause to mention that, while the lawsuit did not really impact upon anyone other than Moore, the shoot did. In any case, it seemed appropriate/useful/notable to have a page dealing with this event. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Better sources have been added to this article since it was nominated for deletion. With sources like the BBC and New York Times mentioning this lawsuit, there are definitely multiple, independent, credible sources establishing notability here. &mdash; λ (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - Merge with the movie's article, the article's subject is notable. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  02:47, 25 May 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.