On 3/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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.