Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Dovydenas vs. The Bible Speaks


 * 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. v/r - TP 00:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Dovydenas vs. The Bible Speaks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable case. Nomination started by IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but consider a merge with Carl H. Stevens Jr.. There was extensive coverage of this case and its aftermath: GNews yields 180+ hits over a period of years, such as these:, , , .  Also 120 hits at gBooks.  I note that mention of this case at Carl H. Stevens Jr. was deleted for lack of references.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looking at, this seems to be a potentially notable bankruptcy case. It's a federal appellate court case, and the court opens by noting its "unique procedural history."   Bankruptcy law is not my area, but perhaps someone knowledgeable in the field could Shepardize In re The Bible Speaks; Dovydenas v. The Bible Speaks, 69 F.2d 628 (1st Cir. 1989); and comment. It's certainly interesting; I don't know whether it rises to notable. TJRC (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most federal appellate decisions are not notable because they are routine, and issued in far greater number than Supreme Court opinions, and among the courts of appeal, the First Circuit is far less influential than, say, the Second, Seventh, or Ninth. "Unique procedural history" doesn't mean anything regarding the case's significance, unless the case itself decided some distinct issue of procedural law.  Did the court's decision establish an important legal precedent that has been adopted outside of the 1st Circuit?  Has it been widely discussed by secondary sources? All indications are that no particular opinion in this case is itself notable, that the lawsuit only impacted the parties, and so if it were to be a standalone article would be about the lawsuit as a whole, rather than any particular court's decision in it.  Neither of the parties even have articles, however.  If The Bible Speaks is just covered in the Carl Stevens article, then that would be an appropriate place for a sentence or three about the lawsuit, but I'm not seeing any basis for maintaining this as a separate article.  postdlf (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the significance of appellate cases, of course. I am not arguing that it is notable (I would have used Keep rather than Comment if I were).  I'm suggesting that someone familiar with the subject area (which appears to be rescission of donative agreements under bankruptcy) may be able to determine its notability, and am pointing out the cite to assist in that.   TJRC (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)



I don't know if it's "landmark" (and I think that word is unnecessary), but it may be notable. Besides other cases (in which it is fairly often cited), it's discussed in the Journal of Law and Religion's 1987 Survey of Trends and Developments on Religious Liberty in the Courts, as well as the following papers:     and  by Jonathan Turley. I have three of these. I'll read them later and see report back here on whether I find substantial coverage which could hold together a verifiable article. DeliciousBits (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete are there any sources to back up the claim that the subject was a "landmark" event? Unsourced. Fails WP:EFFECT. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 07:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The citation by Turley is not very substantial. It is indicative of the case's notability, but I don't see how any content from Turley could be incorporated into the article. The 1987 Journal of Law and Religion citation is substantial, giving two pages of summary that could be incorporated into making a verifiable article here. But among those few articles I was able to access, I find the best evidence of notability to be the Brooklyn Law Review article from 2008, indicating that this case is still having an impact today. That article is also the most useful for our purposes here, as Sherman spends two pages discussing the meaning of the case to the concept of "undue influence" generally. I've quoted him in the article for reference during this AFD. I hope it can stand as evidence during AFD, after which other editors may pare down the quote as they see fit. DeliciousBits (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2011 (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.