Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coons v. Hallman


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Coons v. Hallman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is about a local lawsuit with no demonstration that this isn't simply news. Note that the article's creator claims to be the communications director for one of the parties to the lawsuit, so this is riddled with a clear COI and is clearly POV. Prod was declined by creator; other than one local news article added in the same edit as declining the prod, all of the sources are from the plaintiff's website. There's no evidence of notability here. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not news and can not cover every lawsuit filed. If the Sea Life Aquarium becomes notable then these facts can be reported there. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly trivial, and would not even be worth mentioning when the aquarium becomes notable, as i expect it will.  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 80.84.55.221 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NOT. Joe Chill (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local lawsuit at the trial court level in a state.  Not concluded, therefore not notable for establishing any precedent.  Not notable for any other reason.  This is just newsy. TJRC (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The citations of Goldwater Institute included a quote from one of our litigators (which was deleted in a recent edit) and a timeline entry about an action that the City of Tempe took (which is still there). Unless the entry in the timeline is biased – and it is simply a statement of a legal action, so I do not see how it could be – it is within WP’s policies to cite oneself. After this most recent edit, 2/3 of the references are from outside sources. WP allows citing oneself “within reason,” and I believe that this is within that policy line. A specific suggestion of how and where to improve would be welcome. Additionally, editing an article for a legal case of which you/your organization is a party is not an inherent conflict of interest, as dictated by COI, and is simply strongly discouraged. As such, it does not seem that the article is inherently in violation of COI and further proof of COI is needed. A suggestion of how and where to improve would be welcome. I can understand why there would be suspicions of COI and POV, but, given the specifics of WP’s policies, it seems that further evidence is needed to support this. Mr. Conservative (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2010
 * Setting aside the COI issue, none of this indicates in any way that the lawsuit meets Wikipedia standards of notability. TJRC (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - the general rules here in the past, and at WikiProject Law, are that most lawsuits are not notable until they become appealed; certain exceptions include those involving where both plaintiff and defendant are notable litigants. I can't see how this will have any precedential value even if it gets to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (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.