Thomas Dalton wrote:
A WP editor just happens to find a copy of the original suit and writes about it in Joe Foo's article. Nobody anywhere else is writing about Joe Foo getting sued.
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.)
To clarify then: we should avoid OR, and one of the reasons is that it leads to cases like this: where a one-sided interpretation of events, hotly disputed by the subject of the biography, events that are probably not notable, is included in the article with a plethora of statements which are documented by footnotes.
It is probably GOOD original research. But it is still original research. And it is still problematic.
--Jimbo