Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard & Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Werner Erhard & Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This civil case sets no legal precedent and is not notable. It’s about a minor court case that was brought and dismissed. All of the sourcing was a the time of the event and there’s been no coverage since. At first glance it may look like there is a lot of sourcing here, but taking a deeper look, there are not enough verifiable references that deal with the lawsuit (the actual topic of the article) to meet WP:GNG. The majority of the sourcing has nothing to do with the case. Most of the article is not about the lawsuit itself, but is a reiteration of complaints about the conduct of the campaigns. There is a lot of sourcing which relates to these criticisms, but not much dealing with the basis of the lawsuit, and arguments about politics are not notable events for Wikipedia articles. What sources do exist covered the case as it happened – there has been no coverage in reliable secondary sources about it since 1989 as far as I can tell. NerudaPoet (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Leaning delete. Any person could take a relatively minor case and make it appear to be a big deal by citing extensively to the interests involved. However, we need to have a tighter standard for cases than this. No legal precedent was set, and nothing of legal importance happened here. bd2412  T 18:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Erhard and Landmark are sued regularly. We argued a similar case a couple months back. Court filings are meaningless; they are full of hyperbole (but they make great newspaper copy). The only thing that matters is the judgement. Nothing behind these curtains. Rhadow (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is more a rehash of a primary campaign under a different name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is absolutely no notability standard that a legal case needs to "set precedent" to be notable. Many death penalty appeals do not "set precedent", but that does not mean the cases are not notable. Buffalo Creek did not "set precedent" - it was settled out of Court, but it is indisputably notable. Most notable civil cases do not "set precedent" - this is an absurd and fictitious standard, and any argument for why this article should be deleted should be made based on actual notability policies. The article clearly meets WP:GNG based on the sources already cited. Seraphim System ( talk ) 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thirty-six references appear to give this article notability but, as BD2412 points out, the references do not cite the case but events around it. I agree that there should for a notability guide for legal cases; if it doesn't set precedent or is widely cited it isn't notable. Ifnord (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2017 (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.