Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus can change, and citing the result of a previous AfD without going into the reasons behind that close are not very effective arguments for keeping an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-notable failed lawsuit that set no precedent. It may look like there is a lot of sourcing, but taking a deeper look, there are not enough good sources to meet WP:GNG. If this were a notable case there would have been secondary coverage of the outcome of the case but there is only one source that mentions the outcome (many years later). Several refs are to partisan websites etc which fail to meet WP:RS. Most of the cited references deal with background about est, and the only ones relevant to the case itself are primary court documents about the appeal (not even the original case). The appeal was also rejected. NerudaPoet (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NerudaPoet (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. While it appears that the appellate decision is unpublished (and therefore may not be cited as precedent), the underlying lawsuit (and the events that led to the lawsuit) apparently recieved significant coverage in the sources cited in this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable lawsuit with very little significant coverage of the underlying lawsuit iteslf other than a few local news stories at the time. Most of the refs that adress the topic are primary source court documents.RecoveringAddict (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep - This article was a speedy keep in 2010 at AfD. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment See my comment below. BTW - is there any such thing as a 'Procedural Keep'? DaveApter (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see a clear consensus here yet. I note that this topic is related to Landmark Worldwide, which is under discretionary sanctions.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Keep Speedy keep in 2010. Not sure which biased sources the nom is alluding to, but there are many references cited talking about the background and importance of the case at the time, even if the outcome didn't make legal history. SportingFlyer  talk  07:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the 2010 AfD resulted in a Speedy Keep in no way prejudices the current debate. If anything the reverse, since the previous one was aborted before adequate discussion could take place. Six Keep votes appeared within 16 hours of the proposal (the first within 3 minutes) - surely a highly suspicious pattern - at which point the discussion was closed. No reason was given for the speedy close, and the only one suggested in WP:GLOSSARY is: "when the nomination has been faulty (e.g., a bad faith nomination - ie 'for disingenuous reasons such as making a point or vandalism')". No evidence was provided to suggest any such motivation. DaveApter (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Notability is not established by the refs. Of the 34 references, 13 are background about est or Ehard, and nothing to do with the case itself; 4 are from a source which does not meet WP:RS and 2 are brief passing mentions. No sources have been produced for the 25 years since the appeal case closed. The following Wikipedia policies and guidelines are relevant:
 * 1) Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
 * 2) For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. WP:SPIP
 * 3) While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user... WP:NTEMP DaveApter (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There was continued coverage of the trial, and it continues to be talked about to this day by sources: Also, that is not the test. There was continuing coverage of the trial at the time. The coverage was not routine, either: the sources are not press releases, public announcements, or even tabloid journalism, but rather newspaper articles at the time of the trial. And while people can challenge notability, you're even challenging a snow keep, whose suspiciousness I don't quite gather, as snow keeps happen often, and there were some problems identified and corrected in the snow keep. Apparently this is a contentious article for some reason - would you mind commenting on how your last edit was on Landmark Worldwide, which is apparently tied into this article and under discretionary sanctions? SportingFlyer  talk  16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Response See WP:COVERAGE - the only press citations are news items at the time of the announcement of the suit. There wasn't even reporting of the court proceedings or the outcome. And there has been almost no discussion or analysis of the case in reliable sources in the subsequent 25 years. One single comment would not establish notability even if it were in a reliable source, which your linked blog post is not. DaveApter (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost all the secondary sources given here give background on est or discuss the filing of the suit. The trial itself, its outcome, and alleged impact and basically not covered at all by these secondary sources. It's probably due to this lack of sources that only the last two of 20 paragraphs of the article are about the trial itself and its outcome, which is quite odd. When all of the trial sources are court documents (primary sources), it's a good sign that there isn't enough coverage in secondary sources for notability. As the nom correctly notes, literally the only secondary source I see mentioning the trial, its outcome, or aftermath, is a brief mention from Lewis 14 years later (2001). That's it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete fails notability. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and looks like it might have been written by someone with an agenda. MLKLewis (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2018 (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.