Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security


 * 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 keep. John254 03:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While Scott Helvenston and Blackwater Security are both individually notable, this suit, which is still in progress, is not. It has very few sources, no real assertion of notability, and was flat out cut and pasted from the Scott Helvenston and Blackwater Security articles. I already had to take out a whole bunch of irrelevant, POV sentences. What's left is not enough to keep. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep I've seen the lawsuit covered in the MSM. If there is a notability criterion for lawsuits I'd like to be pointed to it, but I've seen news items with far less coverage than this be deemed notable here. Pete.Hurd 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thousands of lawsuits get announced yearly, for breaches of contract, defamation, tort actions, etc. That does not give them any standard notability.  &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment but how many lawsuits get launched over (allegedly) sending people four under-equipped guys into Falluja that then get killed and hung from a bridge (31 March 2004 Fallujah ambush), sparking Operation Vigilant Resolve etc. etc. etc? Are you saying "meh, just another uninteresting lawsuit" or are you saying "It's obviously very newsworthy, and has been since it was filed in 2005, and might seem important over the next few years, but a hundred years from now, the 31 March 2004 Fallujah ambush, and Operation_Vigilant_Resolve will belong in encyclopedias, but the lawsuit will have vanished into insignificance"? My question about standards of notability was meant to ask something like "Is there a WP:MUSIC, or WP:PROF equivalent for lawsuits?" Coverage of the suit by the International Herald Tribune, ABC Primetime, The Nation, The Guardian (by Terry Jones!?) all makes it seems like it's far more notable than the average "breaches of contract, defamation, tort action" etc. Pete.Hurd 06:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm saying something in between. (And no, there doesn't seem to be a WP:MUSIC/PROF for lawsuits). This case will not have any notability until AFTER it is decided. The opinion is what makes a case important, and there is no opinion yet. Perhaps in 2 years when this is decided and possibly precedent, it will be noteworthy, but until it is, it's simply a complaint, an unverified complaint. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that something like Ken Burns saying that we can't establish the importance of a jazz musician until they've been dead for a while and history has rendered the verdict on their music? If the lawsuit is covered extensively in WP:RS media, with many pundits musing over it's potential impact upon the industry as a whole then does that not amount to notability?  Are OJ's and Michael Jackson's legal problems outside the purvue of an encyclopedia until the judge brings down the final gavel? Pete.Hurd 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that SCO v. IBM, SCO v. Novell, and Red Hat v. SCO are not notable (and ought to be deleted also)? Pete.Hurd 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added citable sources to the requested tags. Notability has been establised, not least by this House of Representatives document as well as The Guardian and ABC News. - Fosnez 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep More sources: The Age: Families sue US firm over Iraq murders; WaPo: Iraq Security Contractor Countersues; The News Observer: Blackwater loses appeal in deaths of four in Iraqi city, Families can go forward with suit. And it took me all of two googlings to find that --Victor falk 14:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to plenty of reliable sources (stretched over a period of 2 years and internationally) to pass any notability guideline. Davewild 19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per previous replies, seems solidly notable. --Gwern (contribs) 22:08 24 September 2007 (GMT)
 * Keep Not sure why this was nominated for deletion, to be honest. --The Cunctator 22:57, 27 September 2007 (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.