- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per consensus. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 18:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Legal controversy between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International
- Legal controversy between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lawsuits and disputes and not generally notable, and the fact that two fringe organisations had a falling out is not in itself worthy of an article. This topic does not have the independent notability needed for a standalone article. Relevant, well-sourced content can be (and is) included in the articles on the respective organisations. St Anselm ( talk) 18:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, I don't think it worthy of an article. I generally don't think legal disputes and lawsuits are notable, otherwise we would be swimming in them, unless they have an massive and widespread effect of the general populace, e.g. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, which had the effect of driving up the cost of smartphones for million's of people across the world. scope_creep ( talk) 13:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC
- Delete per nom and WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Selective merge if desired/required (though I've no interest doing it, that's for sure). The title name is sensationalist and POV, too: it's not a "controversy" that most of us would care a fig about, merely a legal battle between two fringe groups. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I agree with previous comments, really just two fringe groups in a legal battle, not noteable. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking notability. Rebb ing 14:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete agree with previous arguments - there are a couple of paragraphs on these events in each of the articles on the respective organizations, with references, and that's plenty. No need for this article. Make sure when this is deleted the "Main article: ...." references leading here are deleted too, of course. -- Krelnik ( talk) 14:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - NN lawsuit. Bearian ( talk) 20:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per consensus. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 18:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Legal controversy between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International
- Legal controversy between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lawsuits and disputes and not generally notable, and the fact that two fringe organisations had a falling out is not in itself worthy of an article. This topic does not have the independent notability needed for a standalone article. Relevant, well-sourced content can be (and is) included in the articles on the respective organisations. St Anselm ( talk) 18:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, I don't think it worthy of an article. I generally don't think legal disputes and lawsuits are notable, otherwise we would be swimming in them, unless they have an massive and widespread effect of the general populace, e.g. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, which had the effect of driving up the cost of smartphones for million's of people across the world. scope_creep ( talk) 13:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC
- Delete per nom and WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Selective merge if desired/required (though I've no interest doing it, that's for sure). The title name is sensationalist and POV, too: it's not a "controversy" that most of us would care a fig about, merely a legal battle between two fringe groups. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I agree with previous comments, really just two fringe groups in a legal battle, not noteable. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking notability. Rebb ing 14:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete agree with previous arguments - there are a couple of paragraphs on these events in each of the articles on the respective organizations, with references, and that's plenty. No need for this article. Make sure when this is deleted the "Main article: ...." references leading here are deleted too, of course. -- Krelnik ( talk) 14:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - NN lawsuit. Bearian ( talk) 20:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.