- 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. Considering that nobody actually opposes deletion. Sandstein 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Kirkegaard v Smith
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kirkegaard v Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the references are actually secondary RS regarding the case, most are just regarding the background of the subjects who are already controversial. Reference 1 is the closest to being usable, but is not sufficient on its own. I note that neither of the parties is notable either. Furthermore, creator has an undisclosed COI. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 04:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 04:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 04:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Even if there is media coverage of this case (which there doesn't appear to be anyway), it would only be because Kirkegaard is a controversial figure; the lawsuit itself is wholly unremarkable. Mlb96 ( talk) 05:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Question Are you really saying that it is impossible to find media discussion of K's expressed opinions? Even in the US I've certainly heard about them. Captain Eek, you say "the subjects who are already controversial" If they are, and there is media coverage--how could he be controversial otherwise--, then he would be notable, or was this decided otherwise? Assuming he is, then the discussion of the case can be incorporated into that article. I'm mainly reacting--I don't see how a case of this sort could not be notable, but I'm asking, because I haven;t really investigated enough yet.
DGG (
talk ) 01:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- DGG, Well neither of the subjects have articles. The WikiLink for Kirkegaard in the page redirects to OpenPsych, a controversial journal he founded. But no one has made him a page yet. Since he doesn't even have an article, it feels like a stretch to have an article about a court-case about him when the case hasn't been picked up by the media and isn't of importance to legal scholarship. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 05:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- DGG, Also, you may simply have heard of him because he was a Wikipedian: User:Deleet and was banned by ArbCom. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 05:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have heard of him that way,; but i've also seen it otherwise, and when I saw this yesterday,I did not even make the connection., tho several people here have since reminded me. The utter outrageousness of his proposal has given it at least notoriety. I understand perfectly well why anyone would want to avoid giving it furthrr publicity, and for anyone here, perhaps especially because of the wp connection. I don't know that this should be a factor, and I must admit I am not particularly eager to search for material on it. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 3 August 2021 (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.