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. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa Airlines v. Uslan lawsuit[edit]

Mesa Airlines v. Uslan lawsuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:NOTNEWS. Lawsuit of no apparent significance between employer and ex-employee that settled no important legal issues, was decided on technical grounds, and has no significant sourcing outside of as-it-happened local newspaper coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [also WP:NOTNEWS, heavily POV article created by SPA while dispute was going on, employee group involved in same dispute, no non-trivial coverage beyond as-it-happened local news]:

Hawaii's airline Employees Repelling Ornstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete as a non-notable lawsuit; if appealed, it may become notable. No comment on the other article, which is not entirely clear. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Really just an employee dispute that got covered by some business news and local sources because of the dollar amount. Big numbers don't mean notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.