Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard


 * 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. Valid points have been made here that this case had no lasting impact; but equally there is a good argument that it passes the notability threshold anyway through sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. I personally find merit in the argument that this could possibly be better portrayed via a merge to Tiger Management, but there is certainly no consensus here to delete this or to impose a merge. ~ mazca  talk 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard
NOTE: this AfD was started by a userid who is now indefinitely blocked. However, it's in my view still an AfD that's worth running to conclusion, and therefore I choose to stand behind the edit that started the AfD even if I personally may not agree with the reasons offered for deletion. Determining if the article documents a notable event will be useful. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE: Lawsuit filed, lawsuit withdrawn. No legal opinions issued. Much of article consists of padding, down to the index number, synthesis. Classic WP:MASK, even after some paring down. Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivial lawsuits. Compare this rubbish to articles on notable lawsuits such as the "hot coffee case," Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nom. Article goes into minute detail on a lawsuit filed twelve years ago that was withdrawn some months later and established no legal precedent. Nothing in Google. Media coverage does not establish notability. Fails WP:PERSISTENCE: "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." Also fails WP:EFFECT, which says "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." In this case a suit was filed and withdrawn. The lawsuit was not catalyst for anything, as best as I can tell, and there is no connction shown between the statute enacted in the "aftermath" section and the lawsuit. The testimony quoted in that section was given before the suit was filed, and the quotation from Shepard in that section does not mention the lawsuit. I've tried to deal with some of this article's multiple issues, removing some of the worst irrelevancies such as odd references to recent Bloomberg takeover of the magazine, but overriding notability issue remains.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your arguments do not change the fact that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review. Library Journal and Fortune magazine all wrote articles on this suit. Ikip 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Economist piece doesn't discuss the suit at all (I just checked it), so you might want to strike that one. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And others, see below. Cool Hand Luke 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the suit at the time is of no consequence. See WP:PERSISTENCE: "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." The article is so grotesquely padded with legal technicalities that one loses site of the fact that it had no impact. To artificially construct impact, the article incorporated in the "aftermath" section testimony given by a McGraw Hill official before the suit was filed, and a law that was passed in October 2008! The rest is how the fund went out of business. As a legal case it was a nonevent.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your claims do not change the fact that Economist, Library Journal, Technology Review, and Business Week did not mention the lawsuit (and you clearly didn't even bother to check). Nor does it change the fact that all of the coverage is fleeting (see WP:NOTNEWS), and much of it is trivial (two sentences in an article or so). There are a handful of articles announcing the filing of the suit, and there are some that speculate that it might answer a novel legal question (it didn't because it settled for $0). This sort of coverage is not notable, and much of the material really belongs in Tiger Management, which could certainly use more work. I do not believe there is independent notability for this suit. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the sources indicate, the suit was notable for two reasons:  (1) it was the first time that a court case had examined the issue of electronic vs print publishing, and (2) the unprecedented size of the damages demand was noted by the media and watched with concern by the publishing industry.  Please note that the nominator drastically reduced the length of the article's lede, among other removals of article text, categories, and links to it from other articles, without discussion after nominating it for deletion.  I've invited participation in this discussion from several related wikiprojects, including one that the nominator is an active member of     . Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Cla68's first argument is factually false. The court never considered or ruled on the issue; the case settled before it did.  THF (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The court did consider the issue, but the case was settled before the court could issue a decision. The looming court decision on the motion likely had an effect on the parties decision to settle, but that's up to the reader to decide. Cla68 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's misleading to say that this was the first time a court had "examined" an issue. "Examined" implies that a ruling was issue. What your padded article obscures through sheer WP:LARD is that no rulings of any kind were issued. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LARD is an essay, heavily self promoted by the creator, as per the tag on top, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Ikip  17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 & 2 would matter if the suit hadn't been settled before trial without payment of a nickel, and if it had resulted in legal precedent, which it didn't. The demand in a lawsuit is meaningless. I could sue my dry cleaner tomorrow for $1 trillion. By the way, the suit against Dow Jones that *did* result in a massive verdict isn't significant enough to have an article of its own. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said that the lawsuit against Dow Jones isn't significant enough to have an article of its own? This article laid fallow for five years simply because, it appears, no one was willing or able to go and get the sources needed to develop it. Cla68 (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I notice that you drastically shortened the intro again. Why would you make such a drastic change to the article while it's undergoing AfD? Cla68 (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's routine to edit articles that are nominated for deletion, sometimes drastically, sometimes even to stubbify them if necessary.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If necessary being the operative phrase. Your hatchet job is not necessary, and needs reverting. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have anything of substance to say on my edits, you should say so on the talk page. As of this moment, all you've done is engaged in personal attacks. I've asked for editing help from the relevant wikiprojeccts, particularly Wikiproject Law. That's not a complete waste of time if this article is deleted, because a discussion is underway about possible other articles that may be created.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - WP:POINTy nomination by someone who many folk think might be Gary Weiss himself, or someone closely allied with him, (although multiple attempts to determine this one way or the other conclusively have so far been unsuccessful, as some people do learn how to sock better with practice). The nomination has no real basis in fact. The lawsuit was an important one, and it is possible that it lead directly to significant changes in law. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Change my view to keep... enough reasons exist to run this through to conclusion that I no longer think a speedy is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 05:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I express no opinion on this nomination at this time, but I think it's unlikely that this lawsuit led to much of anything. It wasn't even settled for nuisance value ($0), and it produced no legal precedent whatsoever. That said, there does seem to be a handful of quality independent sources. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that perhaps the article should be renamed "Fall of the Wizard" and focus on Weiss' original article and the reaction in the media and by others to it, including the lawsuit? The reaction to the article in the finance and publishing communities does appear to be noteworthy, judging by the sources involved. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If Lar is going to make accusations that might influence the course of this AfD then (s)he should provide evidence. Who are these "many folk" who think that the nominator is a puppet and where has this been debated? As it happens I agree with the nomination - lawsuits like this are ten a penny. I don't know any of the parties here but something is obviously going on. andy (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, what's going on is obvious ("well poisoning"). Let's keep this focused on the notability of the article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's plenty notable, and was a very well written work, before you started hacking away at it. Your issue with the article, I suspect, is that it's not uniformly positive about Gary Weiss and doesn't hew your party line. Notability is just what you happened to latch onto as a way to remove it. You have a long history of trying to POV push anything related to Gary Weiss, as a review of your contributions to Naked Short Selling, Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne et al will reveal. That's all the evidence an interested participant would need to draw the conclusion that it's likely you are Gary, or a close ally of his. You're clever enough to have organized your affairs so that an SPI would be a waste of time but the circumstantial evidence is strong. That's not well poisoning, that's disclosing your COI. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from "plenty notable," do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion other than personal attacks? Can you address the notability issue? Thanks, --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, the article presents a BLP issue for Robertson, not Weiss. It of necessity dredges up the long-forgotten allegations in "Fall of the Wizard," which are extremely negative to Robertson. I'm not faulting the author of the Wiki article for that, it's just inevitable were the article to be kept. I don't see a BLP issue for Weiss and I haven't raised that issue. I've raised notability issues, and I see that two editors appear to agree with me at this early stage. Do you have anything to say on the substance of this AfD, or are you going to restrict your comments here to attacking me?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your COI is relevant to this, regardless of how you try to spin away from it. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "My COI" is nonexistent. I could make an immense fuss about the author of this article along similar lines, but it just isn't relevant or helpful, and it doesn't belong here. You're attacking me in this discussion is [[WP:POINT|

disruptive]] and needs to stop. Even if I were Weiss, Robertson or Shepard, and I'm not either of those gents, this AfD would need to be determined on whether it meets notability standards. You can run but you can't hide from that. I'm surprised an administrator hasn't come along to redact your comments. No, actually I'm not surprised. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in knowing what COI you think Cla has... and if you would be proved to have a COI, this would be viewed as a bad-faith nom, which could&mdash;and probably would&mdash;have a huge effect on the outcome of this AfD. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is precisely my point: this AfD has been poisoned by Lar's accusations. What's done is done. I can only hope that the closing administrator takes it into account.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. If we included every trivial case like this wikipedia would fill up in a week. It has nothing of any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. andy (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - should we then lose all the rediculous amime stuff? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF --Aka042 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * keep - modest encyclopedic value, and the electrons used don't take up that much space. i.e., notable enough.  Does the article need work?  sure.  is it somewhat unflatering to its subjects, sure.  but both of those are not reasons for deletion.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Once the WP:SYN and WP:LARD is removed, and once the material that should be in Tiger Management is moved there, there's nothing left worthy of an independent article. Any RS'd content can be included in Tiger Management without loss to the project. THF (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I find Cla68's argument concerning the "electronic vs print publishing" issue compelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cla68. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cla68's reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Cla68's first argument about "electronic vs print publishing" is factually false. The court never considered or ruled on the issue; the case settled before it did.  THF (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The court did consider the issue, but the case was settled before the court could issue a decision. The looming court decision on the motion likely had an effect on the parties decision to settle, but that's up to the reader to decide. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your missing the point. You say that this was the first time a court had ever "examined" the issue, and THF is right that this is just factually wrong. No opinion was issued, so the court never "examined" it. For all we know, the judge may have felt the motion was out of order or something and decided not to examine it. We'll never know as no opinion was issued. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow. I see that nothing has changed since I last dipped my toe in the Overstock waters approximately eighteen months ago. I see that everything related to Overstock, Patrick Byrne or Gary Weiss always results in lively and heated discussion and off-wiki attention. I'll repeat what I said in an earlier context of the Overstock investigation, after I finally got an administrator's attention to deal with the end of that affair. A lawsuit or investigation that is settled, as this one is or as the Overstock one is, no longer has any relevancy and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. The details of the investigation, like the details of the suit here, are "no longer relevant." It's been asserted that there was no legal precedent, and I see no response to that. Assuming that is correct, I think it's time to put this one out of its misery. I know there's ill feeling toward Weiss. That's apparent from the comments. But we shouldn't be venting that by creating dubious articles on every legal scrape he's been in.Stetsonharry (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability which makes these sentences incorrect: "A lawsuit or investigation that is settled, as this one is or as the Overstock one is, no longer has any relevancy and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. The details of the investigation, like the details of the suit here, are "no longer relevant." RE: "It's been asserted that there was no legal precedent, and I see no response to that." There is no requirement that their be "legal precedence", the only requirement is that the page meet notability guidelines, which it overwhelmingly does. Ikip 17:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite an opera here since I last looked in. On your points: true about notability not temporary, but the Overstock investigation was removed on the basis of it no longer having any lasting impact. That seems to be parallel here, along with the striking personnel similarities. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the fact that $8 billion flowed into and grew within Tiger Management during the year of the lawsuit. If that is not a palpable enough indicator of the importance of the suit itself in fighting back the arrogance of the publisher of the defamatory and sloppy journalism, I don't know what would be.  Wikipedia should not be sweeping under the rug important events having $8 billion hanging in the balance. This is a well-written article, and its deletion would highlight an embarrassing agenda that runs counter to a freely-licensed encyclopedia. -- Cool3 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? On the contrary, the cash inflow indicates that the lawsuit was of zero importance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What concerns me so much about this AFD, which is now spilling over to ANI, is that volunteer editors with no credentials are second guessing real journalists such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review. Library Journal and Fortune magazine. Some how, all of these journalists found that this story was relavant and notable, but 3 or 4 wikipedia volunteer editors WP:Wikilawyer that this article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Ikip 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I addressed that above. See WP:PERSISTENCE. I know, it's just a notability guideline. But it's supposed to guide this discussion. Also it was previously pointed out that the Economist and Library Journal don't mention this lawsuit. We're not substituting our judgment for anybody, we're just applying the notbility guideline, which could not be more clear. Of the publications that actually did mention the suit, all did so at the time of the suit or after its withdrawal.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per THF. I think Lar's suspicions may be correct, but the possible involvement of a subject does not somehow make the article more notable. It's a suit with no opinions that settled for a whopping $0. There are some sources about the case, but these suits are not rare, and reports of high damages demands do not make it notable. Cool Hand Luke 12:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep If any one AFD can show that our rules are out of control, and that anyone can find a reason to delete anything, it would be this AFD. This is the first time I have ever heard such obscure rules as WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, but somehow, editors are trying to argue that these obscure rules trump reliable sources, a rule which everyone knows about, and which Cool Hand Luke himself acknowledges, "there does seem to be a handful of quality independent sources". Very well referenced article. Ikip  17:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE aren't "obscure rules" - they're shortcuts to Notability (events) which is a key WP guideline! So yes, they may well trump rules "which everyone knows about". I don't care a hoot if it's deleted or not (I think it should be but I won't weep either way) but to argue about whether Notability trumps Reliable Sources is weird! andy (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A handful of reliable sources with less extensive coverage than this article would suggest. Much of it should certainly go to Tiger Management, but there is not much to show the suit is independently notable from the fund, as our policies require. At any rate, this AFD is hash anyway; not surprising given that the nominator is widely believed to have a conflict of interest. I recognize that problem, but still honestly believe this suit falls on the far side of notability. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The atmosphere of this AfD has been completely poisoned. I hope the closing administrator is prepared to enforce policies rather than to just blindly treat this as a "vote." The vast majority of the "keep" votes at this time don't even attempt to address the applicable notability standard. This is the kind of article (and AfD) that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:Gary Weiss, Talk:BusinessWeek, Talk:Tiger Management, Talk:McGraw-Hill page(s) which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
 * Keep - it's not the easiest thing to have a topic covered by all of these individual, independent, reliable sources: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review, Library Journal and Fortune. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Library Journal does not cover this lawsuit in the reference cited - which you can find here. andy (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and I have struck the journal above. However, that doesn't change the fact that eight different organizations, all reliable sources, have covered this. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've obviously not actually looked at any of the sources. Many are simply about Tiger Management and only devote two sentences to this lawsuit. The Economist article doesn't appear to cover it at all. Look, I get that this may be a COI AFD nomination, but that doesn't mean our rules should take a holiday. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That'll teach me to be swayed by what others say above and then use it for my argument. I've struck, but whether that changes my !vote or not is a question for tomorrow when I get back to the computer. Thanks for the comments, andy and CHL. My apologies, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - if we were simply an encyclopaedia of legal cases then I could see the logic of "Lawsuit filed, lawsuit withdrawn. No legal opinions issued" as an argument for deletion, as no legal precedent has been set. However we are a general interest encyclopaedia, and therefore I see no problem in our finding space for information as widely covered as this.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be quite notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources. A case doesn't have to be decided to be notable. How best to include the information is another issue, but I don't see a lack of sourcing or notability in this instance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of notable external content to work with here, and that says something, even if the case wasn't typical. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per CoM and WereSpielChequers.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, for basically two reasons: I find Cla68 and Lar's reasoning most compelling; to a lesser extent, it seems that the nomination itself was quite POINT-y, given that the nominator first shaved the article lede quite substantially. Unit  Anode  17:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - It appears quite notable per coverage of reliable sources and the fact that the nominator was indefinitely blocked. December21st2012Freak   Happy New Year! at ≈ 00:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the nom was indef blocked, while validating the concerns I had about the reason it was nominated in the first place, isn't relevant any more as other established users have identified issues they find concerning about the notabiity of the article. That's why I chose to stand behind the nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable based on widespread coverage in published sources. Everyking (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * note I struck the indefinetly banned user's comments, as is custom. Ikip 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I read about this article at Wikipedia Review, where there is quite a discussion going on, lead by cla68 and Judd Bagley of Overstock.com. Evidently this is the latest artillery shell to be lobbed in the ongoing battle between Overstock.com and its allies and Mr. Weiss. That might explain why there are so many editors here ignoring established site policies, so as to vote "keep" for an article of no merit whatsoever. --AmishPete (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * — AmishPete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ikip 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but a scalpel may be useful too. Other than this being an outpost for one of the all-time epic wiki-wars, I would judge any lawsuit article by how it changed the world. One way is through a novel decision, especially one that sets precedent. Another way is through the effect of a lawsuit on public attitudes, corporate conduct, etc. I'm swayed by the NY Times saying "This appears to be the first case in which the publication rule has been applied to a magazine that was initially published electronically". Aside from the lesson of don't wait 'til the last day to file your suit, which we all learned with school assignments, this looks like a novel "gotcha" and is worthy of reporting here. That said, the article has a whole lot of puff, but I'll take that up elsewhere. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial,  No legal principles involved, since it was settled out of court. The question of publication date was decided later by statute, not by this case. If the case had been decided on that basis  then it would been a precedent, at least in a popular sense.    That a motion was made is not a precedent, either in technical or common use. It was not even ruled on, even in a preliminary way.  Though it was said by "Floyd Adams, a First Amendment lawyer representing BusinessWeek, “This will be the first case in which the courts address the impact of a publication appearing on the Net rather than on paper" "-- his prediction turned out to be wrong--the courts did not address the issue, or even have the opportunity to do so.     DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've cited no actual policies in support of your recommendation. Calling it "trivial" is simply not a sound reason for deletion. It's well-sourced and notable in its own right. It's a bit of a marginal topic, but since this encyclopedia isn't made of paper, that doesn't matter nearly as much. Unit  Anode  05:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For something trivial, there sure are a lot of published sources about it... Everyking (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which exact published sources are about "it"? I know for sure that at least one source doesn't mention the suit at all, it just backs up mundane facts. Franamax (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The following sources specifically mention the suit:
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)
 * I just noticed that the Oppel article mentions that Robertson's suit has made people afraid to criticize him. I neglected to mention that in the article, but it probably should be.  Again, this suit had a notable effect even though it wasn't decided in court. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The court filing and the original article with statement are not independent sources and cannot establishe notability. Several of the other sources (including the later two NYT articles) appear to mention the suit only in passing. This is especially striking in the 1999 article&mdash;it does a moderately long postmortem on Tiger Management and only devotes two sentences to the lawsuit. This suggests to me that the original nominator was likely correct&mdash;it lacks the ENDURANCE required to be considered an independently notable subject. See also NOTNEWS. Much of this material should go to the Tiger Management article, but the SYN at the end should be cut entirely. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of refs and this is quite interesting. NBeale (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of those statements are true, but the nomination is not on the grounds that it's an uninteresting article. What do you think of the policy issues here? Is it notable? andy (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't create articles using some synthesis claims to notability to settle old wikipedia grudges.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, based on all the press coverage that it received. The fact that it didn't actually end up in a courtroom, nor that the article could use some improving, is not really relevant in light of that fact.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak keep based on the sources provided, which to me indicate that it has been covered by enough third-party sources to merit inclusion. Some decent arguments from both sides (and a decent amount of poor arguments from both sides).  I agree, however, that the fact that it wasn't decided doesn't really indicate that it is not notable, at least in my mind.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  02:30, 2 January 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.