On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Ultimately, I think we should wait until we have some external sources *for the importance of the case*. As it stands, it looks to me as if only Langan, the Mega Society pushers and a few Wikipedia editors actually give a damn about it. And that says "undue weight" to me.
Sure, it's undue weight.
Undue weight isn't original research, just like poor notability isn't original research. Call it what it is.
This actually matters. Once we start stretching the definition of original research to include things that aren't, that stretched definition is going to stay around, be used in precedents, etc. It's a very bad idea to misclassify the reason for deleting something, even if it really does deserve deletion.