| Revision as of 20:19, 17 August 2011 editAustex (talk | contribs)4,422 editsm →Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:23, 17 August 2011 edit undoTom Morris (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators68,554 editsm Listing on WP:DELSORT under LawNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ::Furthermore, the genesis of the article was as a single section written into an individual's article page -- the "consultant" referred to in the article -- and that individual's biographical page was subsequently deleted as being not notable. This article therefore has no business in Misplaced Pages as it was started to presumably provide balance (or possibly to put the indivdual in a negative light) concerning an individual who was later judged to be non-notable for Misplaced Pages and his page removed. With that biographical page now deleted, there is no valid reason for this article to exist as a stand-alone orphan. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #008080;padding:1px;">] • ] </small> 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC) | ::Furthermore, the genesis of the article was as a single section written into an individual's article page -- the "consultant" referred to in the article -- and that individual's biographical page was subsequently deleted as being not notable. This article therefore has no business in Misplaced Pages as it was started to presumably provide balance (or possibly to put the indivdual in a negative light) concerning an individual who was later judged to be non-notable for Misplaced Pages and his page removed. With that biographical page now deleted, there is no valid reason for this article to exist as a stand-alone orphan. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #008080;padding:1px;">] • ] </small> 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small> —] (]) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
Revision as of 20:23, 17 August 2011
Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding
AfDs for this article:- Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Please read article discussion page re Orphan, Neutrality, and Unencyclopedic for discussion on reasons for proposed deletion. I will attach them below. (Also Please note that I have a WP:COI on this subject and will refrain, if possible, from the detailed discussion in the Afd after presenting the arguments below. Austex • Talk 19:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Creating deletion discussion for Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding
- Regarding Neutrality: While the article extensively covers the original trial with detailed quotations from testimony and precedents, no such in-depth coverage is provided for the retrial. The entire retrial is dealt with in one simple paragraph. Such detail material is presumably available to the author or other editors, but is not included here.
- Regarding Orphan:This article is a "low importance" orphan and has no other pages linked to it. Furthermore, one of the the primary author of the article (GregJackP) has been banned indefinitely from further editing making it unlikely that the orphan status will be changed.
- Regarding Unencyclopedia:Given that this article represents the one and ONLY lawsuit covered in Misplaced Pages concerning a lawsuit against Waste Management (when in fact the company has literally hundreds of lawsuits filed against them each year, at least several of which are of equal or much, much greater importance such as anti-trade issues), the article should be considered for deletion. And if it is to be argued that it is encyclopedic, then where are there any other articles in Misplaced Pages covering lawsuits of relative equal or greater merit against Waste Management?
- Furthermore, the genesis of the article was as a single section written into an individual's article page -- the "consultant" referred to in the article -- and that individual's biographical page was subsequently deleted as being not notable. This article therefore has no business in Misplaced Pages as it was started to presumably provide balance (or possibly to put the indivdual in a negative light) concerning an individual who was later judged to be non-notable for Misplaced Pages and his page removed. With that biographical page now deleted, there is no valid reason for this article to exist as a stand-alone orphan. Austex • Talk 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)