John Lee wrote:
Basically, as I understand it, the reason we ought not to have included the lawsuit is not because it's a novel interpretation of the facts, but because the facts have not been published by a secondary source. In theory, we could have articles about every lawsuit ever filed, but I think many people, even inclusionists, would balk at that - and for good reason.
Really? We could put the text of all these lawsuits in Wikisource. At least in North America they are all in the public domain.
Like it or not, "notability" still plays a role (albeit a rather undefined one) in how we think about the encyclopaedia. And although we may not say it outright, it seems the present established status quo is that we establish sufficient notability by the existence of secondary sources. If it hasn't been covered by a secondary source, it probably isn't worth writing about. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources.
We would do better to separate issues of notability from tose of sourcing. Inclusion in a secondary source can imply notability, but it does not mean that absence from secondary sources implies lack of notability.
Ec