Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An inaccurate, out-of-date, and one-sided blurb misrepresenting the single source it cites. Doesn't even include critical information such as docket number. Not a notable lawsuit yet, if ever: no precedents have been set, no money has been awarded, no injunctive relief granted. The fact that one 10Q had CYA language about pending litigation does not create notability. THF (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no significant third party coverage of this lawsuit or indication of its importance to law. -Drdisque (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete If there is no independent coverage, Wikipedia shouldn't host an article about it. Sandboxer (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2009 (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.