On 3/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Since nobody else has written about Joe Foo getting sued, the suit itself is non notable and therefore the information in Joe Foo's article about the suit is removed by Jimbo.
No. Jimbo never mentioned notability. He removed it on OR and NPOV grounds. (Mainly NPOV, I think, the comments about OR were just to explain where the writer had gone wrong.)
No he didn't, but I found this comment on the Langen talk page before Jimbo jumped in..
"This is critical. The lawsuit in question is exactly like the situation of a messy divorce. In fact, it is a messy divorce between two parties. The divorce in question is not notable, and no grounds for its notability have been provided. It is not important to the article. No attempt whatsoever has been made to demonstrate it is notable to the article. No claim has been made about why this case is supposed to be interesting or relevant. It is purely a way of trying to get at the subject of the entry. The official policy could not be more clear about what to do with such a non-notable, unimportant event: leave it out."
This may or may not be what Jimbo was thinking of but this makes sense. "Joe Foo" may be notable but a lawsuit against him isn't necessarily notable. If, for example, an editor just happens to find the docs on the web or goes to find them after hearing about the suit in a non notable "Joe Foo sucks" blog, then it's OR and to add it to Joe Foo's article would be using Wikipedia to establish the suit's notability which is a big no no. Once a notable news source reports about it, then we can write about it.
Then again I might be completely wrong.